Relocation Survey - Atlas Van Lines

H ANNUAL45ltsH ANNUAL45ltsH ANNUAL45Who Responded?To qualify for participation, a respondent must haverelocation responsibility and work for a company that haseither relocated employees within the past two years orplans to relocate employees this year. Atlas sent invitationsvia e-mail, and 361 relocation professionals completedonline questionnaires between January 10 and March 2.• Most (82%) work in human resources/personnel or relocation/mobilityservices departments for firms in:– service (39%)– manufacturing/processing (30%)– financial (12%)– wholesale/retail (10%)– government and military (2%)– other industries (6%)• For analysis, firms are categorized by size:– 32% have fewer than 500salaried employees (small)– 38% have 500-4,999 salariedemployees (mid-size)– 30% have 5,000+ salariedemployees (large)• Over half (57%) are international firms.For complete results of the “Corporate Relocation Survey,” please visithttp://www.atlasvanlines.com/relocation-surveys/corporate-relocationCorporateRelocationSurvey IntroductionResults HighlightsRelocation Volumes & BudgetsRecovery Gained Traction Last Year;Expectations Stabilizing, Risks RemainIn 2011, relocation gained traction: nearly half of firms saw volumesincrease, and over a third reported budgets increased as well. Largefirms posted the biggest gains – nearly two-thirds had increases involumes and about half had budgets improve. Overall, expectationsfor 2012 show continued optimism far above 2009 recessionary levels.However, expectations for increased volumes remain somewhatmuted compared to 2004-2005, similar to 2006-2008. Expectationsfor increased budgets remain similar to 2010-2011, but are alsosomewhat muted compared to 2005-2008, when roughly a third offirms expected increases. Although the vast majority foresee stabilityand improvement, expectations overall remain somewhat subduedcompared to the last post-recession recovery of the previous decade.Expectations for budgets are fairly consistent across companysize, with roughly a fourth of firms expecting increases and wellover half expecting stability. However, differences emerge in volumeexpectations. Large firms are most optimistic: more than a third expectan increase. For mid-size and small firms, just under a fourth expectan increase, while the vast majority anticipate volumes similar to 2011.However, while the overall expectation of budget decreases remainslow, the 16% or less of mid-size and large firms anticipating decreasesare about double the percentages reported last year, while for smallfirms this is a significant drop from nearly one-fourth.The percentages of firms that expect increased volumes and budgetsmaintain improvement over recent severe retractions, but remainbelow levels reported during previous economic recovery and growthperiods, especially among large firms. This indicates that while therecovery gained momentum last year, it remains subdued.Rather than high growth, expectations are for stabilizationwith improvement, with indications the potential exists toslip back into recessionary territory.• The median number of relocations by large firms finallyincreased in 2011, returning to the “200-399” average rangereported in 2002-2007 after falling to “100-199” in 2008-2010.The median range (20-49) for mid-size firms remains improvedfor the second year, after falling to “10-19” in 2008-2009.• The greatest amount of relocation volume growth occurred forinternational firms, with more than half reporting increases in2011; over a third of regional and national firms saw increasesas well. Roughly a third of firms across business reach indicatetheir 2011 relocation budgets also increased.• International firms are by far the most optimistic for 2012;about one-third expect further increases in volumes andbudgets, while less than one-fifth of regional or national firmsdo. However, the vast majority of these firms expect stability inthis year’s volumes and budgets.International Relocation VolumeExpectations Similar to Overall RelocationWhile slightly less pronounced than overall relocation,international relocation also saw volumes bolstered in2011, with 42% reporting increases. This trend appearsacross company size, with slightly fewer firms indicatingincreases over 2010 compared to overall relocation levels.For 2012, international volume expectations remainimproved compared to 2009-2010 and similar to 2011.More than one-fourth of firms expect increases thisyear, and over half expect volumes similar to 2011.Expectations for increases are greatest among largefirms (37%), followed by both small and mid-size firms(23%). Expectations for increased international volume arenearly identical to expectations for increases in overallrelocation volume across company size. However, whilemid-size firms report similar expectations for increasesinternationally and overall (23%), far more expectdecreases internationally compared to overall volume(18% vs. 7%). This percentage remains near historic nonrecessionarylevels, but may indicate mid-size firmsare likely to pull back relocations internationally beforemaking domestic cuts.• For-profit service firms are more likely to expect internationalvolumes to increase in 2012 than manufacturing/processingfirms (40% vs. 19%).While expectations for overall relocation volumesremain somewhat muted compared to those reportedin previous economic recovery and growth periods,expectations for international volumes are muchlike those seen in 2006-2008 across company size.Question 6: Overall Relocation VolumeCompared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number ofemployees your company will relocate during [this year] will...10080604020016%51%33%16%51%33%20%52%28%14%56%29%18%56%25%52%38%10%26%53%22%13%58%30%12%61%26%2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Totals greater than/less than 100 are due to rounding.Question 47b: International Relocation VolumeDECREASESTAY ABOUTTHE SAMEINCREASECompared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employeesyour company will relocate internationally during [this year] will…10080604020013%57% 57% 57%30%13%29%15%28%39%46%15%17%65%18%16%56%28%16%55%29%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Totals greater than/less than 100 are due to rounding.DECREASESTAY ABOUTTHE SAMEINCREASE12

CorporateRelocationSurveyResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4510080604020034%66%37%63%45%55%42%58%45%55%39%61%45%55%34%66%28%72%2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011DID NOT OUTSOURCEOUTSOURCEDremains slightly elevated compared to previousperiods of economic growth, although markedlybelow previous recessionary peaks and nearerrecovery levels overall. As noted last year, theseverity of the most recent economic retractionmay signal a protracted recovery before companygrowth regains its former prominence.The top internal factor varies by company size, butmaintained improvement in company growth over2009 lows is the key trend for firms of all sizes. Itcomes in third (38%) among large firms, just belowknowledge/skills transfers (45%) and corporatereorganization/restructuring (44%). At mid-sizefirms, company growth retook the top spot for thefirst time in four years, while the former top factor,promotions/resignations, came in a close second(38% vs. 43%), and knowledge/skills transfersfollowed with nearly equal weight (35%). Companygrowth is the top internal factor cited by small firms(36%), followed closely by knowledge/skills transfers(31%) and promotions/resignations (31%).• The top factor among for-profit service firms was clearlycompany growth (46%), with knowledge/skills transfers,promotions/resignations, and new territory expansioncited as well by roughly a third (35%, 33%, & 32%). Atmanufacturing/processing firms, knowledge/skillstransfers was the top internal factor (40%), with lessthan a third citing promotions/resignations (30%) orcompany growth (29%).Question 41: OutsourcingRespondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocationservices, the answers received indicate that…OutsourcingIncreases Overall, Historic HighsAlmost three-fourths of companies outsourced relocationservices in 2011, up significantly from 2002-2010 (55%to 66%), and at the highest level reported in ten years.Generally, mid-size and large firms continue to outsourcea greater variety of relocation services than do smallcompanies. Large firms are more likely than mid-sizefirms to have outsourced real estate sales/marketing,real estate purchases, orientation tours, expensetracking/reimbursement, company policy counseling,audit/payment of invoices, property management, andsupplementary services. Nearly half or more of large firmsoutsourced the relocation-related services listed in thesurvey (with just one exception).Overall Shifts• Outsourcing increases across every service category from2010 with the exception of supplementary services; mostincreases are significant, and this is the second year ina row this has occurred.• Individual outsourcing category levels are the highest inten years with two exceptions: the arrangement of familytransportation/accommodations falls just shy of historic highs,and supplementary services remains at mid-range levels.• Most services have seen outsourcing roughly double or morefrom the lowest levels of the past decade. The only categorieswhich haven’t (i.e., counseling about the planning/detailsof relocation, real estate sales/marketing, and real estatepurchase) have seen more than 10% growth from their lowsduring this period.Outsourcing Changes by Company SizeSignificantly more large firms outsourced than did in2010 (95% vs. 89%) with increases across every categoryexcept supplementary services, resulting in mostcategories yielding the highest levels of outsourcingin ten years. The following categories saw the largestgains from the previous year: orientation tours (64% vs.50%), counseling about the planning/details of relocation(57% vs. 43%), expense tracking/reimbursement (65% vs.53%), household goods carrier contracts (63% vs. 51%),counseling about company policy (56% vs. 45%), andthe audit/payment of invoices (54% vs. 44%). Overall,significantly more large firms outsourced relocationservices in 2011 than in the previous nine years (2002-2010:78%+).Most mid-size firms outsourced in 2011 (83%), thehighest level in ten years and significantly above 2002,2005-2010 (62%+). Nearly all category percentagesincreased compared to 2010, with most approaching,meeting or exceeding ten-year highs. The exception wassupplementary services, which fell well below historichighs (15% vs. 25%+).Overall, outsourcing at small firms dips only slightlycompared to 2010 (36% vs. 41%) and remains similar tothe past nine years. Nearly all categories of outsourcingremain within a few percentage points of the previousyear, with most approaching, meeting or exceedingten-year highs.• Across company size, most service categories have seenoutsourcing roughly double or more from the lowest levelsover the past decade, and those which have not doubledhave seen increases.Relocation Reimbursement/PaymentFull Reimbursement Use Rebounds;Multiple Methods Still FavoredAfter progressively declining over the past two years, thepercentage of firms using full reimbursement reboundsto near previous highs (65% vs. 69%+) and remains themost popular method overall. The progressively greateruse of lump-sum and partial reimbursement appears toplateau; nearly half of companies use lump sums, similarto the past four years, but the percentage using partialreimbursement dips to 40%, down from nearly half in2011, and nearly equal to 2008-2010. Interchangeability inmethods appears to decline slightly from last year, butremains a clearly entrenched trend compared to 2003-2007. Of note are differences by company size: smallfirms are less likely than mid-size and large firms to offera lump-sum option (38% vs. 53% and 48%), and largefirms remain the most likely to offer full reimbursement(77% vs. 60%).For new hires, full reimbursement retakes the top spotas the most popular method, reversing its progressivedecline from 2009-2011. The percentage of firms usingfull reimbursement is at its second highest level since2003 (57% vs. 59%). This method is followed closely bylump-sum payments (50%) which roughly half of firmssince 2008 have used for new hires. The percentageusing partial reimbursement falls significantly from 2011(40% vs. 51%) and is at its lowest level since 2006. Fullreimbursement and lump-sum are the top two methodsacross company size for new hires; however, small firmsare much more likely to use full reimbursement thaneither lump-sum or partial reimbursement (55% vs. 40%and 34%). While roughly half or more of mid-size firmsuse any of the three, large firms show a clear preferencefor either full reimbursement or lump-sum payment overpartial reimbursement (64% and 54% vs. 38%).Question 31: Transferee Reimbursement 2004-20128070605040302060504030202004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FULL REIMBURSEMENTPARTIAL REIMBURSEMENTLUMP SUM PAYMENTYearYear63%45%40%49%59%44%41%57%49%47%Question 31: New Hire Reimbursement 2004-201255%51% 49%51%45%48%46% 47%2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FULL REIMBURSEMENTPARTIAL REIMBURSEMENTLUMP SUM PAYMENTResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4565%47%40%57%50%40%7 8

CorporateRelocationSurveyResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45• In 2012, percentages of firms offering full reimbursement totransferees or new hires return to levels near 2003-2005highs. While the use of lump sums for both transfereesand new hires has generally increased over the past tenyears, it dips slightly in 2012 but remains at elevated levelscompared to 2003-2007. The use of partial reimbursementdrops significantly compared to last year for both transfereesand new hires, remaining markedly above 2003-2007 fortransferees, but near historic lows for new hires over thepast ten years.• The percentages of small and large firms offering fullreimbursement to transferees or new hires approach orexceed the highest levels in ten years, while the percentageof mid-size firms offering this increased only slightly andremains significantly below historic highs. Among mid-sizeand large firms, the use of lump sums remains near historichighs, roughly double or more its lowest levels over thepast ten years, while at small firms it remains at its highestlevel of use among transferees, but declines in favor slightlyfor new hires.• The use of partial reimbursement compared to last yearfalls across company size for both transferees and newhires, with the most pronounced drops occurring for newhires at large and small firms (38% vs. 50%, 34% vs. 47%).This matches the ten-year low for new hires among smallfirms, although usage remains well above historic lowsat both mid-size and large firms for new hires and acrosscompany size for transferees.• Approximately half or more relocations last year were fullyreimbursed across company size, but a significantly higherpercentage of relocations by large firms were fully reimbursedthan at small to mid-size companies (67% vs. 49% and 53%).Question 32a: Lump Sum Payment ApplicationFor what types of relocation costs are lump sum paymentstypically offered to relocating employees?Miscellaneous AllowancesEntire Relocation CostTravel ExpensesTemporary HousingHousehold Goods Shipping/StorageRental Assistance/TransactionsReal Estate Assistance/TransactionsOther16%11%4%41%38%30%51%63%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Lump Sum Application:For the second year, the survey included additionalquestions about the costs covered under lump sumsand the employees to whom they are offered. Amongfirms using lump sums, far more firms offered them forthe entire relocation compared to last year (51% vs. 39%).Small firms were the most likely to do this in 2011 (49%vs. 38% mid-size and 29% large firms), but now roughlyhalf of all firms across company size indicate doing so in2012. Despite this change, some trends remained. Similarto last year, more than a third of firms use lump sumpayments for temporary housing and more than a fourthoffer them for shipping and storing household goods.Small and mid-size firms remain much more likely to uselump sums for shipping and storage expenses than largefirms (44% and 30% vs. 17%). Large firms are more likelythan small or mid-size companies to use lump sums formiscellaneous allowances (79% vs. 42% and 64%) aswell as for temporary housing expenses (55% vs. 31%and 30%).Some shifts in lump sum application may be relatedto shifts in who is commonly receiving them. In 2011,nearly half or more firms reported using lump sumsfor nearly every type of employee with the exceptionof homeowners (31%). This year, the gaps between whoreceives these benefits widen. Entry level employeesare much more likely than executives to be offered alump sum (52% vs. 32%), new hires are more likely thantransferees (65% vs. 43%), and renters are more likelythan homeowners (48% vs. 30%). In general, employeesthat would typically cost less to relocate are more likely tobe offered lump sums (i.e. entry level employees, renters,etc.), while those that typically receive more expensivepackages are less likely (i.e. transferees, executives, etc.).The greatest decrease in lump sum offers compared tolast year occurs for executives (32% vs. 43%).This year, new hires are much more likely thantransferees to receive lump sums across company size(56% to 71% vs. 37% to 48%), a change from 2011 whenthere was far less discrimination between new hires andtransferees at mid-size (60% vs. 53%) and large firms(55% vs. 52%). However, similar to last year, mid-size andlarge firms more commonly offer lump sums to entrylevel employees than to experienced professionals orexecutives (53% vs. 38% and 24%, 72% vs. 45% and 40%,respectively), while small firms remain more likely to offerthem to experienced professionals than to entry levelemployees (48% vs. 29%).Cost CoverageOn average, as in the previous nine years, nine out often companies reimburse or pay some relocation costsfor transferees or new hires. Overall, coverage of corerelocation expenses (i.e. pack all items, move unlimitedweight, unpack all items, etc.) remains nearly identical tolast year or increases slightly. The percentages of firmsreimbursing core relocation expenses nearly meet orexceed historically high levels, similar to last year aswell. Across company size, the percentages of firms thatreimburse core relocation expenses remain similar tolast year and to most of the past nine years with oneexception: the percentage of small firms covering thecost of relocating an automobile is the highest in tenyears and is significantly higher than in 2003-2010(69% vs. 51%+).Half or more of companies reimburse/pay to:Pack all items (82%)Move an automobile (80%)Move exercise equipment (52%)Move a second automobile (52%)• Unpack all items (49%)While the percentages of firms covering some noncorerelocation benefits remain well below historic peaksand nearly match or surpass ten-year lows, those offeringto cover costs associated with relocating a secondautomobile, picking up items from a second home,permanent/extended storage, moving pets, and movingvia containerized shipment remain the same or increaseover last year overall, rising to levels significantly abovehistoric lows and approaching, meeting or exceeding thehighs of the past nine years.Specialized Assistance for Homeowners/RentersMost firms offer specialized relocation assistance forhomeowners, however, small firms remain less likely todo so than mid-size or large firms. Similar to the pastfour years, the percentage of firms offering loss-on-salereimbursement remains significantly elevated over 2007(31% vs. 20%). The percentages of firms offering qualifiedhome-sale programs and bonuses/incentives foremployee-generated home sales stay significantly above2007-2008 as well, similar to the past two years (39% vs.31%+, 28% vs. 21%+). Additionally, the percentage offeringmortgage subsidies/allowances remains significantlylower than in 2008-2009 for the second straight year(14% vs. 22%+). Also similar to last year, significantly morefirms reimbursed employees for home sale costs thanResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45did in 2010 (57% vs. 50%). Two shifts of note occur in 2012:significantly more firms are offering home marketingassistance compared to the past five years (53% vs.40%+) and significantly more are offering storage (61% vs.50%+) compared to ResultsFORTY-FIFTH 2007, 2010-2011.ANNUAL45For homeowners, more than half of firms offerthe following to transferees or new hires:Temporary housing allowance (72%)Home-finding trips (68%)Storage (61%)Reimburse/pay for home sale costs (57%)Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs (55%)• Home marketing assistance (53%)Most firms offer specialized relocation assistance forrenters, however, small firms remain less likely to do sothan mid-size or large firms. Overall, percentages of firmsoffering each type of renter-specific assistance increasecompared to last year with one exception: fewer firmsallow temporary living allowances to be applied towardrent (19% vs. 23%), and this is the lowest level in ten yearsoverall. Compared to the past nine years, significantlymore firms say they reimburse/pay for lease cancellation(68% vs. 55%+ 2003, 2005-2011), home-finding trips (66%vs. 55%+ 2006-2007, 2010), storage (54% vs. 41%+ 2003-2007, 2010-2011), and apartment search/finder’s fees (39%vs. 27%+ 2003, 2006-2008, 2010).For renters, more than half of firms offer thefollowing to transferees or new hires:Temporary housing allowance (70%)Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation (68%)Home-finding trips (66%)• Storage (54%)Manufacturing/processing firms are more likely thanfor-profit service firms to offer specialized assistanceto homeowners in general (95% vs. 82%), as wellas across specific assistance categories, with twoexceptions: qualified home sale program (42% vs. 35%)and storage (65% vs. 62%). Both types of firms sharesimilar likelihoods of offering renter-specific assistanceoverall (93% vs. 90%), as well as across categories withone exception: manufacturing/processing firms aremore likely to offer renters home-finding trips (74% vs.58%). International firms are more likely than regional ornational firms to offer nearly all of the specific types ofhomeowner assistance listed, and are more likely to offerrenter-specific assistance overall (94% vs. 88%+).9 10

CorporateRelocationSurveyResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45Trailing Spouse/Partner AssistanceAssistance Generally StableForty-one percent of all firms offer employmentassistance to the spouse or partner, similar to levels overthe past nine years except for the high (50%) in 2009and low (33%) in 2007. At large firms, over half (54%)offer assistance, similar to the past nine years (45%+);for small firms, the level is similar to historic levels foreach year (37% vs. 32%+) except for the high (48%) in2009, and trends higher than most other prior years. Thepercentage of mid-size firms offering this assistance isnearly equal to last year (36% vs. 37%), similar to most ofthe past nine years except for the high (47%) in 2010 andthe low (18%) in 2007. At firms offering assistance, roughlyone out of every four relocations involved spousalemployment assistance from 2007-2010; last year thisaverage trended upward to roughly one in three.• Most small firms offer networking assistance (83%), muchmore than do mid-size or large firms (42% and 39%).Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firmsto offer outplacement/career services from an outside firm(54% and 56% vs. 14%).Overall, the percentage of firms where spouse/partneremployment “almost always” or “frequently” affectsan employee’s relocation returns to the lowest level inten years (39%, matching 2008), although it is similarto levels in this time frame for every year except 2007and 2011 (46%+). Impact differs based on company size,however. The percentage of large firms affected regularlyis at its lowest in ten years (27%) and significantly belowmost prior levels; over half of small firms report spouse/partner employment is more of an issue, near ten-yearhighs (53% vs. 57% in 2007); and over a third (35%) ofmid-size firms cite it as a regular issue, similar to the pastnine years (32%+).• Small firms are more likely to be impacted by the employmentstatus of a spouse or partner than are mid-size or large firms(53% vs. 35% and 27%).International Relocation DurationsShort-Term Assignment Expectations Remain ElevatedExpectations for increased international short-termassignments (less than 12 months) remain elevatedcompared to 2008-2010 (27% vs. 13%+) and similar to2005-2007 and 2011 (22%+). While under a sixth of firmsreport short-term assignments as the standard lengthfor international relocations, this percentage has roughlydoubled since 2006 (15% vs. 8%), driven by increasesamong large and mid-size firms (12% vs. 5%, 18% vs.7%). For 2012, over a third of large and over a fourthof mid-size firms expect further increases in shorttermassignments (similar to last year) and at higherlevels than in 2008-2010 (34% vs. 19%+, 27% vs. 7%+).Expectations for an increase in short-term assignmentsremain similar to the past seven years for small firms,with the vast majority expecting usage to remain static.• For-profit service firms are more likely than manufacturing/processing firms to indicate the typical length of aninternational assignment is less than a year (23% vs. 8%).Service firms are also more likely to expect short-terminternational relocations to increase in 2012 (31% vs. 19%).International OutsourcingOverall Level Continues IncreasingThe percentage of firms outsourcing internationallyin 2011 reached the highest level in nine years (77%),surpassing the 2008 high (74%) and significantly above2004-2007 and 2009 (58%+). Increases were reported inevery outsourcing category, with levels nearly meetingor exceeding the highest recorded the past eight years;property management was the only exception, remainingunchanged over the past three years it has beenmeasured. The most noteworthy increases over 2010occurred within the following: shipment monitoring (52%vs. 36%), counseling about the planning and details ofrelocating internationally (46% vs. 32%), household goodscarrier contracts (54% vs. 43%), and relocation policycounseling (41% vs. 31%).As they have for the past eight years, most mid-sizeand large firms outsourced international relocationservices in 2011. The percentage of small firms doingso has progressively increased over the past twoyears after dipping substantially in 2009 (30% vs. 42%and 49%), returning near the highest levels reportedin 2007-2008 (49%+), well above 2004-2005 (23%+).Among mid-size firms, the percentage outsourcinginternationally surpasses the high in 2008 (78% vs.76%), significantly above lows in 2006-2007 (59%+).The percentage of large firms nearly matches the highin 2010 (88% vs. 91%), significantly above 2004, 2007 and2009 (76%+). Last year, nearly half or more of large firmsoutsourced the international relocation services listedin the survey, with origin home property management(37%) and international real estate services (26%) theonly exceptions.Among companies that outsourced relocationservices domestically in 2011, the percentage that alsodid so internationally reached a nine year high (88%),similar to 2003, 2008-2010 (81%+) and significantlyabove 2004-2007 (70%+). Large firms were much morelikely to outsource internationally than were mid-sizefirms; however, they showed similar propensities foroutsourcing across categories, except for interculturaland language training (63% vs. 45%) and destinationservices/orientation tours (64% vs. 51%); large firms weremore likely to have outsourced these services.International vs. Domestic PolicyMost Considerations Stable, Trend LowerHistorically; International EmploymentAssistance Similar to Past YearsMost firms (79%) report differences between domesticand international relocation policies in 2012, althoughthis remains near the lowest percentage in ten yearsand significantly below 2004 (88%). Overall, percentagesfor individual policy considerations are similar to lastyear, with two exceptions: significantly fewer firms offeradditional leave time with a visit home (45% vs. 56%) orfinancial services assistance (18% vs. 37%). Historically,most policy considerations approach, match or exceedten-year lows, significantly below historic highs, yetsimilar to most other prior years. The three exceptionswith significantly lower levels compared to five or moreprevious years are: additional leave time with a visithome (45% vs. 55%+ 2003-2004, 2006-2011); increasedallowances for permanent storage (34% vs. 43%+2003-2006, 2009); and additional leave time in general(24% vs. 47%+ 2003-2007).• Among large firms, policy considerations are close tothe same levels or down slightly from 2011, most near orbelow ten-year lows. However, three categories decreasesubstantially compared to last year: increased permanentstorage (43% vs. 61%); higher rental allowances (43% vs.58%); and financial services assistance (23% vs. 46%). Twocategories nearly meet or match ten-year highs: allowancesfor children to attend certain schools (66% vs. 70%) andintercultural/language training (70% vs. 70%).• Policy considerations at mid-size firms trend nearly the sameor slightly lower across most categories compared to last year,falling in the mid-range or approaching/surpassing ten-yearlows. Only two considerations fell significantly comparedto 2011: far fewer firms offer additional leave time with avisit home (39% vs. 53%) or financial services assistance(16% vs. 38%), exceeding historic lows (41%, 2003 and 30%,2010, respectively).Small Mid-Size Large• Policy considerations remain similar to last year for smallfirms with one exception: significantly fewer allow additionalleave time with a visit home (23% vs. 40%). Overall, policyconsiderations are similar to ten-year lows, with manysignificantly below previous category highs. Additionally, thepercentages of firms offering additional tax considerations(37%), additional leave time with a visit home (23%), andadditional leave time generally (12%) are at the lowest levelsin ten years.Forty-one percent of companies offer to help find jobsfor spouses or partners relocating internationally, similarto 2006-2011 (33% to 46%). While fewer mid-size firmsoffer this assistance than did last year (33% vs. 39%), itResultsremains similar to the FORTY-FIFTH past ANNUAL45six years and significantlyabove 2004 (17%). The percentage of small firms alsotrends lower compared to 2011 (30% vs. 33%), well belowhighs in 2007 (42%) and 2009 (45%), but similar to mostprior years and substantially above 2003 (19%). Morethan half of large firms (52%) offer this assistance, upslightly from 2010-2011 (40%+), similar to most of the pastnine years and markedly above 2003-2005 (24%+). Forinternational moves, both mid-size and large firms aremore inclined to pay for outplacement/career servicesfrom an outside firm than are small firms (19% and 22%vs. 7%), although large firms are more likely than eithermid-size or small firms to offer international employmentassistance generally. Nearly half (46%) of manufacturing/processing firms offer this assistance, as do roughlya third (36%) of for-profit service firms; these sharesimilar likelihoods of offering the types of internationalemployment assistance listed in the survey except foroutplacement services, which manufacturing/processingfirms are more likely to offer (24% vs. 11%).Question 47e: International Short-TermRelocation ExpectationsCompared to [last year], do you expect the number of internationalshort-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) [this year] to...10%27%(24%)IncreaseDecreaseResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45TotalSmall (7%)Stay About Mid-Size the SameLarge( ) Indicates Results From Previous Year.Totals greater than/less than 100 are due to rounding.64%(69%)34%(32%)Small11%(7%)16%(12%)5000 +SalariedEmployeesSmall12%(12%)Less Than500 SalariedEmployees5%(5%)55%(62%)72%(77%)27%(25%)500 - 4999SalariedEmployeesMid-Size69%(70%)Mid-Size1112

CorporateRelocationSurveyThe following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group’s 45th Annual Survey of CorporateRelocation Policies conducted from January 10 through March 2, 2012 via the Internet. This year, 361 onlinequestionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers to domestic relocations occurring in 2011.Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/– 1%) due to rounding, unless otherwise noted. Other questionstotaling above 100% are due to multiple responses. Complete findings are as follows:(For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to http://www.atlasvanlines.com/relocation-surveys/corporate-relocation)A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2011?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees2% None 6% 0% 0%31% 1-9 67% 25% 1%12 % 10-19 16% 15% 5%11% 20-49 6% 19% 7%12% 50-99 3% 21% 12%14% 100-199 1% 16% 24%7% 200-399 1% 3% 17%11% 400 or more 1% 1% 34%20-49 Median 1-9 20-49 200-3992. Do you ever relocate employees between countries?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees61% % of companies answering “Yes” 37% 61% 85%3. Is your company. ..Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees15% Regional 25% 15% 5%27% National 38% 26% 17%57% International 37% 58% 78%4. Compared to 2010, did the number of employees you relocated in 2011. ..Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees47% Increase 37% 43% 62%43% Stay About the Same 52% 44% 31%11% Decrease 10% 13% 7%5 . Compared to 2010, did your 2011 relocation budget ...Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees36% Increase 28% 34% 47%52% Stay About the Same 63% 50% 43%12% Decrease 10% 16% 10%6. Compared to 2011, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocateduring 2012 will…Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees26% Increase 23% 23% 35%61% Stay About the Same 63% 70% 50%12% Decrease 15% 7% 15%7. Compared to 2011, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2012 will…Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees EmployeesResults26% Increase 23% 25% FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4529%60% Stay About the Same 63% 63% 55%14% Decrease 14% 13% 16%8. Over the past year, have economic/market pressures impacted your company’srelocation volumes for:Entry Level/New HiresOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees20% Yes – Increased # of Relocations 18% 13% 29%18% Yes – Decreased # of Relocations 20% 15% 21%62% No – Volumes Unaffected 62% 72% 50%Middle ManagementOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees28% Yes – Increased # of Relocations 23% 24% 37%17% Yes – Decreased # of Relocations 20% 18% 12%56% No – Volumes Unaffected 57% 58% 51%Sr. Management/ExecutivesOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees28% Yes – Increased # of Relocations 23% 28% 35%13% Yes – Decreased # of Relocations 15% 11% 13%59% No – Volumes Unaffected 63% 61% 53%Long-term AssignmentsOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees17% Yes – Increased # of Relocations 11% 15% 27%13% Yes – Decreased # of Relocations 12% 13% 13%70% No – Volumes Unaffected 77% 72% 60%Short-term Assignments (any arrangement 12 months or less)Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees20% Yes – Increased # of Relocations 12% 18% 32%10% Yes – Decreased # of Relocations 14% 8% 7%70% No – Volumes Unaffected 74% 74% 61%9. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2011?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees57% % of companies answering “Yes” 33% 58% 83%*excludes those who don’t knowResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4510. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee’s career?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees24% % of companies answering “Yes” 26% 21% 24%11a. Did your company offer additional incentives to encourage employee relocations over thepast year?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees73% % of companies indicating “Yes” 63% 78% 76%1314

CorporateRelocationSurvey11b. Which of the following additional incentives did your company offer to encourage employeerelocations over the past year?Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 11a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees78% Extended temporary housing benefits 79% 75% 79%49% Relocation bonuses 47% 52% 49%43% Loss-on-sale protection 21% 37% 71%39% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs)in salary at new location38% 40% 38%37% Extended duplicate housing benefits 21% 37% 51%21% Telecommuting option (one or two days 22%each week) to curtail commuting costs19% 21%15% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property salewon’t cover employee mortgage debt)11% 14% 19%8% Guarantee of employment contract 14% 8% 2%(for specified length of time) if relocation accepted10% Other 8% 8% 12%11c. How often did offering the above incentives prove successful in convincing an employeeto relocate?*Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 11a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees37% Almost always 33% 39% 37%57% Frequently 58% 56% 58%6% Seldom 7% 6% 5%0% Never 2% 0% 0%*excludes not applicable/don’t know responses12. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2011...*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees18% Increase from the 2010 level 15% 17% 21%75% Remain about the same as the 2010 level 75% 77% 70%8% Decrease from the 2010 level 10% 5% 8%*excludes those who don’t know12a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation?Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried“Yes” to Question 9: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees71% Housing/mortgage concerns 76% 66% 73%64% Family issues/ties 64% 74% 55%42% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 33% 41% 46%39% Spouse’s/partner’s employment 42% 38% 38%28% Cost of living in new location 24% 31% 27%28% No desire to relocate 33% 31% 24%7% Job security concerns 9% 9% 6%3% Other 3% 3% 3%13a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2011 in each of the following:Within the U.S.Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees2% None 3% 3% 0%32% 1-9 72% 25% 3%12% 10-19 12% 20% 3%11% 20-49 7% 13% 12%13% 50-99 2% 19% 15%26% 100 or more 3% 17% 60%4% Don’t know 1% 3% 7%Between the U.S. and CanadaOf those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees62% None 86% 71% 26%29% 1-9 11% 25% 50%4% 10-19 2% 1% 11%1% 20-49 0% 0% 3%0% 50-99 0% 0% 0%1% 100 or more 0% 0% 2%4% Don’t know 1% 3% 8%Between the U.S. and Another CountryOf those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees46% None 74% 46% 18%31% 1-9 23% 40% 27%7% 10-19 2% 4% 15%6% 20-49 0% 5% 12%4% 50-99 1% 1% 9%3% 100 or more 0% 1% 9%4% Don’t know 0% 2% 10%Within a Single Foreign CountryOf those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees69% None 91% 76% 40%10% 1-9 7% 10% 12%1% 10-19 1% 0% 2%3% 20-49 0% 1% 6%1% 50-99 0% 0% 3%1% 100 or more 0% 0% 3%16% Don’t know 1% 12% 35%Between Two Foreign CountriesOf those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees64% None 93% 67% 33%14% 1-9 6% 17% 18%4% 10-19 0% 4% 7%4% 20-49 1% 3% 7%1% 50-99 0% 1% 3%2% 100 or more 0% 1% 5%11% Don’t know 0% 7% 26%13b. What was the most frequent destination of transfer…Within the U.S.*Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees42% Northeast 31% 45% 48%37% Midwest 30% 40% 41%31% South 27% 31% 35%26% West 18% 23% 38%19% Southwest 19% 21% 15%15% Central 9% 16% 19%*excludes N/A responsesResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL451516

CorporateRelocationSurveyBetween the U.S. and Another Country/Region*Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees41% Asia 33% 39% 45%35% Europe (Western) 20% 29% 45%26% Canada 27% 19% 33%24% United Kingdom 17% 21% 29%15% Europe (Eastern) 13% 13% 17%14% United States 20% 11% 15%12% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 9% 16%10% South America 7% 10% 11%6% Middle East 0% 5% 9%4% Central America/Caribbean 7% 3% 3%3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 3% 3% 3%2% Africa (North) 0% 4% 1%2% Russia 0% 0% 4%6% Other 3% 9% 3%*excludes N/A responsesWithin a Single Foreign Country/Region*Of those relocating employees: 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees33% Asia 35% 38%32% United States 31% 38%31% Europe (Western) 42% 30%22% Canada 15% 23%13% Europe (Eastern) 8% 17%12% United Kingdom 12% 13%9% South America 8% 8%7% Australia/Pacific Rim 4% 8%4% Middle East 4% 4%3% Central America/Caribbean 0% 2%1% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 2%1% Russia 0% 2%0% Africa (North) 0% 0%2% Other 4% 2%*excludes N/A responses/Less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responsesBetween Two Foreign Countries/Regions*Of those relocating employees: 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees56% Asia 72% 47%39% Europe (Western) 36% 38%36% United States 28% 43%24% United Kingdom 19% 28%19% Europe (Eastern) 11% 25%14% Australia/Pacific Rim 14% 13%11% Canada 3% 17%10% South America 6% 15%9% Middle East 6% 13%7% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 6% 9%4% Africa (North) 8% 2%4% Central America/Caribbean 3% 4%3% Russia 3% 4%4% Other 3% 6%*excludes N/A responses/Less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responsesB. Factors impacting RELOCATIONS14. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employeerelocations in 2011?ResultsOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees14% External conditions had no impact 18% 14% 11%51% Lack of qualified people locally 51% 54% Results 46%FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4537% Economic conditions 34% 30% 48%36% Real estate market 30% 34% 45%12% Growth of international competition 4% 11% 22%9% Growth of domestic competition 8% 12% 7%5% Regulatory environment-domestic or 3%international (i.e. employment legislation/policies)4% 8%1% Natural/man-made disasters - 0% 1% 1%domestic or international (i.e. hurricanes,earthquakes, system failures (oil/nuclear/other), etc.)1% Other 0% 1% 1%15. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of youremployee relocations in 2011?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees7% Internal conditions had no impact 13% 5% 4%39% Growth of company 36% 43% 38%37% Knowledge/skills transfers 31% 35% 45%34% Promotions/resignations 31% 38% 33%27% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 12% 26% 44%25% Expansion into new territories 17% 26% 32%23% Acquisitions/mergers 16% 21% 35%17% International expansion 8% 21% 24%16% Expansion of facility 17% 16% 16%14% Budget constraints 12% 11% 18%13% Closing of facility 6% 13% 21%9% Use of short-term assignments 4% 11% 13%7% Increased production 6% 10% 5%2% Delayed retirements/employee transitions 3% 1% 3%2% Other 2% 3% 3%16. Compared to 2010, from your company’s perspective, please rate the following in 2011:Your company’s overall financial performanceOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees63% Better than 2010 57% 65% 66%25% Same as in 2010 31% 24% 22%12% Worse than 2010 12% 12% 12%The U.S. economyOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees34% Better than 2010 33% 36% 31%45% Same as in 2010 46% 43% 45%22% Worse than 2010 21% 21% 24%The U.S. real estate marketResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees19% Better than 2010 12% 23% 22%51% Same as in 2010 52% 49% 53%30% Worse than 2010 36% 29% 25%1718

CorporateRelocationSurvey1917. Compared to 2011, please indicate what you anticipate for 2012:Your company’s overall financial performanceOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees67% Better than 2011 61% 73% 67%29% Same as in 2011 37% 24% 26%4% Worse than 2011 3% 4% 6%The U.S. economyOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees44% Better than 2011 40% 53% 37%48% Same as in 2011 55% 41% 51%7% Worse than 2011 5% 6% 12%The U.S. real estate marketOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees35% Better than 2011 34% 40% 31%55% Same as in 2011 57% 53% 55%10% Worse than 2011 9% 7% 15%C. Policy administration18. Does your company have a formal relocation policy?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees87% % of companies answering “Yes” 67% 95% 97%19a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its relocation policy?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees22% No tiers or levels/single policy 41% 20% 10%16% Two tiers 25% 14% 10%26% Three tiers 22% 30% 25%23% Four tiers 9% 26% 31%12% Five tiers or more 3% 10% 24%2.9 Average Number of Tiers 2.1 2.9 3.5(of companies with tiers/levels)19b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on?Of those with tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 19a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees56% Job or Grade Level 45% 55% 66%(i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.)34% Homeowner/Renter Status 13% 33% 53%29% Position/Job Title 23% 33% 28%27% New Hire/Current Employee Status 19% 20% 42%4% Other 3% 3% 5%20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation department?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees78% % of companies indicating “Yes” 58% 78% 97%20b. Does your company’s centralized relocation department . . .*Of those with a centralized relocation Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salarieddepartment: (see Question 20a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees84% Develop relocation policy 72% 90% 85%79% Manage domestic relocation programs 69% 74% 90%60% Control household goods carrier selection 66% 52% 65%55% Control additional relocation services 40% 55% ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4564%provider(s) selection50% Manage international relocation programs 27% 43% 72%24% Handle air travel via commercial airlines 42% 22% 15%21% Control freight carrier selection 31% 12% 23%14% Control air carrier selection 21% 10% 14%11% Handle office relocations 25% 8% 5%*excludes those who don’t know21. Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocationpolicy/practice over the past year? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees30% No cost containment measures 40% 31% 20%beyond typical relocation policy orprogram utilized35% Cap relocation benefit amounts 42% 36% 26%24% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 16% 17% 40%23% Offer pre-decision counseling 9% 19% 42%19% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 17%(coverage items, amounts)21% 18%19% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility forcertain benefits9% 18% 29%18% Offer short-term/extended travel/ 13% 15% 26%commuter arrangements rather thanrelocate employees10% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 6% 9% 16%7% Modify COLA offering policy 6% 6% 9%6% Incentivize renting rather than homepurchase at destination3% 4% 10%1% Other 0% 1% 4%22. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees100% 32% 38% 30%23. In 2011, what approximate percentage of your company’s relocating employees were (at origin):Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees48% Transferees 35% 48% 60%52% New Hires 65% 52% 40%56% Homeowners 56% 57% 54%38% Renters 37% 36% 41%6% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 8% 7% 5%24. How long does an employee have to…ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45a) Accept a relocation offer*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees28% 1 week or less 26% 32% 24%44% Up to 2 weeks 39% 43% 54%6% Up to 3 weeks 8% 5% 5%17% Up to 1 month 18% 17% 14%1% Up to 2 months 2% 0% 0%(question 24a results continued on next page)*excludes those who don’t know20

CorporateRelocationSurvey4% Provide paid personal leave days 4% 4% 5%4% Relocate an elderly relative that does not 3% 4% 5%live with the employee currently, but willeither live with the employee at the newlocation or at a nearby residence/facility3% Other 0% 5% 5%37. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for childcare?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees57% No childcare assistance 67% 57% 47%23% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars 19% 26% 24%for outside care22% Provide list of local schools/educational 14%options23% 30%21% Provide list of childcare providers/services and/or agencies17% 18% 28%11% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 8% 7% 19%9% Provide paid personal leave days 10% 7% 11%5% Other 0% 8% 7%38. How frequently is an employee’s relocation affected by the employment statusof that employee’s spouse/partner?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees6% Almost always 10% 5% 4%32% Frequently 43% 30% 23%52% Seldom 34% 57% 68%9% Never 13% 7% 5%*excludes those who don’t know39. Does your company allow the hiring of spouses of employees?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees66% Yes, but not in the same 54% 70% 73%department/division17% Yes, without restriction 24% 9% 19%5% Yes, but not at the same location 3% 8% 4%12% No 19% 13% 5%*excludes those who don’t know40a. Does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in thenew location?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees41% % of companies indicating “Yes” 37% 36% 54%40b. How does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment inthe new location?Of those who did not indicate “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 40a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees52% Provide networking assistance 83% 42% 39%44% Pay for outplacement/career servicesfrom an outside firm14% 54% 56%33% Provide resume preparation assistance 29% 29% 39%25% Provide interviewing skills training 14% 21% 36%14% Find employment within company 21% 17% 7%13% Find employment outside company 19% 21% 3%8% Other 2% 6% 14%ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4540c. What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used thisemployment assistance?*ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45Of those who did not indicate “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 40a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees31% Average Percent 40% 24% 28%ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45*excludes those who don’t knowF. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT41. Which of the following services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO orbrokerage firm in 2011?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees28% Did not use a relocation service, HROor brokerage firm in 201164% 17% 5%55% Real estate sales/marketing 23% 61% 82%51% Contract of household goods carrier 26% 63% 63%44% Real estate purchase 15% 48% 69%42% Monitoring of shipment 17% 51% 57%42% Expense tracking/reimbursement services 15% 46% 65%41% Orientation tours at new location 16% 45% 64%41% Counseling about the planning &details of relocation18% 47% 57%38% Counseling about company policy 14% 43% 56%37% Tax gross-up assistance 16% 43% 53%35% Arrangement of family’stransportation and accommodations14% 41% 51%33% Audit and/or payment of invoice 12% 35% 54%31% Assistance with employee claimspreparation and submission10% 38% 45%28% Property management 6% 31% 46%16% Supplementary services(appliances, cleaning, etc.)8% 15% 27%1% Other 1% 0% 3%41a. Which department(s) at your company select a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm?Of those where company outsourced: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 41) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees74% Human resources 88% 83% 59%37% Relocation 5% 24% 64%25% Procurement 0% 22% 39%10% Executive management 17% 7% 11%5% Other 7% 5% 5%42a. With how many carriers does your company have contractual agreements for the transportationof household goods?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees62% % of companies with contracts 51% 59% 78%2.1 Average number of carriers(of those with contracts)1.9 1.8 2.642b. Of the household goods carriers under contract, does your company specify which carriersare preferred?Of those with contracts: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried(see Question 42a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees67% % of companies answering “Yes” 67% 64% 69%2526

CorporateRelocationSurvey43. Which of the following attributes are considered most important when SELECTING a householdgoods carrier?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees78% Service (i.e. overall capabilities, 74% 76% 86%capacity, communication)77% Quality(i.e. on-time delivery, performance history)65% 77% 88%75% Price 76% 72% 76%58% Reputation 59% 55% 59%36% Pre-existing relationship with carrier 41% 32% 35%34% Claims processing 22% 30% 50%26% Local agent(s) 25% 26% 28%21% Multi-level service options (DIY to full) 22% 23% 19%16% Technology 9% 15% 23%12% Corporate social responsibility/ 10% 8% 17%green initiatives8% Other 5% 13% 5%*excludes those who don’t know44. Are carrier transportation expenses paid directly by the company or paid by the employee andthen reimbursed?TransfereesOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees91% Paid directly by the company 81% 92% 100%15% Paid by the employee andthen reimbursed23% 17% 6%4% Paid by the employee andnot reimbursed5% 4% 4%New HiresOf total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees89% Paid directly by the company 76% 91% 100%17% Paid by the employee andthen reimbursed28% 18% 5%4% Paid by the employee and 7% 2% 3%not reimbursed45. Which of the following attributes are considered most important when EVALUATING a householdgoods carrier?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees80% Service (i.e. overall capabilities, 75% 80% 84%capacity, communication)77% Quality(i.e. on-time delivery, performance history)69% 81% 80%70% Price 75% 71% 64%55% Employee feedback 50% 57% 56%39% Partnership “fit” with our organization 31% 35% 50%32% Claims processing 23% 31% 42%10% Online/mobile access customer tools 10% 10% 11%7% Other 3% 10% 6%*excludes those who don’t know46. Who selects the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees EmployeesResults38% The company 34% 33% FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4548%34% A relocation firm 11% 47% 40%15% The company & employee together 31% 12% 3%9% The employee 19% 7% 2%Results4% Other 4% 1% 7%46a. Which department(s) at your company select the household goods carrier for youremployee’s relocation?Of those where company is involved Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedin selection: (see Question 46) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees62% Human resources 80% 69% 29%33% Relocation 4% 29% 76%12% Procurement 7% 14% 18%8% Executive management 13% 3% 7%6% Other 7% 5% 7%G. INTERNATIONAL47a. Compared to 2010, did the number of employees your company relocated internationallyduring 2011. ..Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees42% Increase 30% 40% 50%47% Stay About the Same 53% 47% 44%11% Decrease 16% 13% 6%47b. Compared to 2011, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocateinternationally during 2012 will . . .Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees29% Increase 23% 23% 37%55% Stay About the Same 58% 59% 50%16% Decrease 19% 18% 13%47c. What is the typical international relocation assignment duration for employees at yourcompany?Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees4% Less than 3 months 5% 4% 4%11% 4 to 12 months 12% 14% 7%56% Greater than 12 months, but lessthan 3 years63% 49% 59%29% 3 years or more 21% 33% 30%47d. In 2011, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:*Short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months)Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employee18% Average Percent 14% 16% 22%Lump sum payment onlyOf those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employee9% Average Percent 21% 10% 3%*excludes those who don’t knowResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL452728

CorporateRelocationSurvey47e. Compared to 2011, do you expect the number of international short-term/temporaryassignments (less than 12 months) in 2012 to ...Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees27% Increase 12% 27% 34%64% Stay About the Same 72% 69% 55%10% Decrease 16% 5% 11%47f. Comparing your international relocation policy to your domestic relocation policy,does your company’s international relocation policy offer…Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees21% No difference between internationaland domestic relocation policies40% 28% 6%57% Additional tax considerations 37% 54% 68%51% Intercultural and language training 26% 42% 70%48% Allowances for children to attend 19% 42% 66%certain schools45% Additional leave time that includes 23% 39% 62%at least one visit back to theemployee’s home country36% Higher rental housing allowance 23% 36% 43%34% Increased allowances forpermanent storage28% 27% 43%34% Higher relocation allowances 23% 37% 35%24% Additional leave time 12% 24% 29%18% Financial services assistance 12% 16% 23%16% Extended per diem charges 16% 14% 18%15% Security support program 7% 12% 20%11% Other 2% 10% 16%47g. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocationservice, HRO or brokerage firm in 2011?Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees23% Did not use a relocation service, HRO 51% 22% 12%or brokerage firm for internationalrelocation services in 201154% Contract of household goods carrierfor international shipping23% 61% 62%52% Monitoring of international shipment 23% 61% 56%50% Destination services/orientation toursin host country16% 51% 64%47% Arrangement of family’s temporaryaccommodations16% 51% 57%47% Intercultural and language training 16% 45% 63%46% Counseling about the planning & detailsof relocating internationally21% 51% 54%45% Securing rental property in host country 16% 47% 56%42% Visa & immigration services 23% 41% 52%41% Counseling about company policyconcerning international relocation14% 49% 46%36% Repatriation services 14% 36% 47%35% Management of internationalrelocation program14% 37% 43%35% Arrangement of family’sinternational transportation14% 36% 44%28% Property management of home at origin 7% 29% 37%22% International real estate(sales/marketing and/or purchases)9% 25% 26%5% Other 2% 2% 10%ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4547h. Which of the following attributes are considered most important when SELECTING a householdgoods carrier for international relocations?ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees79% Service (i.e. overall capabilities, 72% 76% 84%capacity, communication)76% Quality 63% 77% 82%(i.e. on-time delivery, performance history)ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL4570% Price 79% 65% 69%52% Reputation 58% 54% 48%29% Pre-existing relationship with carrier 33% 37% 20%25% Scheduling 23% 24% 26%17% Technology 16% 14% 20%16% Multi-level service options (DIY to full) 21% 16% 14%11% Corporate social responsibility/green initiatives16% 7% 13%7% Other 2% 10% 7%47i. How does your company assist an internationally relocated employee’s spouse or partner infinding employment in the new location?Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees59% No assistance 70% 67% 48%18% Pay for outplacement/career servicesfrom an outside firm7% 19% 22%16% Provide networking assistance 19% 15% 15%13% Pay for work visa in new location 14% 10% 16%13% Provide resume preparation assistance 12% 12% 15%9% Provide interviewing skills training 9% 7% 11%6% Find employment within company 7% 4% 6%4% Find employment outside company 2% 7% 1%6% Other 0% 2% 11%47j. In 2011, what reasons were cited for an employee declining an international relocationor for an international relocation to fail?Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salariedto Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees38% No international relocations declinedor failed63% 46% 19%26% Family issues/ties 19% 25% 30%25% Personal reason (non-disclosed) 16% 19% 35%14% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 14% 11% 16%12% Financial issues/concerns 7% 11% 16%4% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 2% 5% 4%4% Lack of adaptability by employee 5% 4% 4%2% War/terrorism 7% 0% 1%1% Illness 0% 0% 2%2% Other 0% 2% 3%20% Don’t know 5% 17% 29%2930

CorporateRelocationSurveyH. corporate/rESPONDENT PROFILE48. Which one of the following most accurately describes your company’s business classification?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees33% Service (Profit) (includes educational 37% 32% 32%services, healthcare, high-tech, etc.)30% Manufacturing/Processing 33% 29% 29%12% Financial 6% 17% 12%(includes banking, insurance, investments, etc.)10% Wholesale/Retail 5% 11% 13%6% Service (Non-profit) (includes religious 11% 4% 3%institutions, charities, etc.)2% Government/Military 4% 1% 2%6% Other 3% 6% 10%49. What were your company’s annual sales for 2011?*Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees9% Less than $25 million 19% 6% 1%6% $26 - $50 million 10% 4% 3%6% $51 - $99 million 18% 0% 0%10% $100 - $249 million 24% 6% 0%10% $250 - $499 million 15% 13% 1%7% $500 - $749 million 5% 13% 1%8% $750 million - $1 billion 5% 13% 7%45% Over $1 billion 4% 46% 87%*excludes blank responses50. What is your gender?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees72% Female 58% 76% 81%28% Male 42% 24% 19%51. What is your department’s function?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees58% Human Resources/Personnel 82% 66% 24%24% Relocation/Mobility Services 3% 13% 59%11% Compensation & Benefits 1% 17% 13%2% Administration 7% 0% 1%2% Talent Management 1% 1% 3%1% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 1% 1% 1%2% Other 5% 2% 0%52. What is your position within the company?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees1% President 3% 0% 0%11% Vice President 23% 9% 2%19% Director 25% 20% 12%30% Manager 23% 26% 44%19% Relocation Administrator 2% 26% 27%4% Supervisor 5% 1% 5%2% Recruiter 4% 1% 2%4% Coordinator 4% 4% 5%2% HR Assistant 3% 1% 0%8% Other 7% 13% 4%53. Which of the following trade publication(s) do you regularly read?ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45ResultsFORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL45Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees11% None 11% 12% 9%58% HR Magazine 77% 56% 40%40% Mobility 10% 34% 77%Results23% HR News 41% FORTY-FIFTH 19% ANNUAL45 8%22% Workforce 28% 29% 9%22% Human Resource Executive 37% 21% 7%22% Employee Benefits News 32% 26% 5%8% Human Resources Outsourcing 15% 4% 5%(HRO) Today7% The Relocation Report 5% 4% 12%5% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 3% 6% 7%4% National Relocation & Real Estate 3% 4% 6%5% Other 5% 5% 5%54. To what relocation-related association(s) do you currently belong?Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ SalariedSalaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees37% None 55% 40% 15%35% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee 8% 26% 75%Relocation Council - ERC)32% Society of Human ResourceManagement (SHRM)39% 35% 23%20% Regional or local relocation council 6% 15% 41%8% Forum for Expatriate Management 3% 7% 15%4% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 2% 0% 10%2% Canadian Employee RelocationCouncil (CERC – Canada)1% 0% 5%6% Other 4% 7% 8%3132