INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES

Transcription

1 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 1

2 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY SURVEY Overview COVID-19's Impact 9 out of 10 firms made changes to relocation policy/programs due to COVID-19 last year and anticipate having to make additional changes in Two out of three firms say the COVID-19 pandemic had the greatest impact on relocation volumes in One out of three firms say relocation volumes decreased in 2020 overall and that COVID-19 was the reason; 4 out of 10 say relocations decreased internationally. Health concerns/illness/covid-19 pandemic was the top reason cited by employees declining relocations in 2020, both overall and internationally. More than half of firms say COVID-19 increased the complexity of relocation administration and made relocating employees more difficult in Half of firms say COVID-19 increased relocation costs last year and expect the same impact in out of 10 firms say they asked relocation providers to perform additional services to meet employee needs due to COVID-19. 2

3 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Employee Accommodations Increase Companies offered additional incentives or non-standard exceptions to encourage relocation acceptance increases for a third straight year. Companies offered more spouse/partner employment assistance both overall and internationally. Alternative assignment use reaches the highest level historically, with accommodating employee needs the top reason for use. Assistance for childcare and elder care increased for a third straight year. The Future of Work 95% of companies participating in the survey believe at least some portion of their workforce will be remote, either full time or partially. Companies predict that around a third of their workforce will be fully remote and more than a fourth will be hybrid workers. 9 out of 10 have constraints in place for employees working remotely. Almost half of small firms expect their workforce to fully return to office/on-site location work; larger firms only expect one out of three employees to fully return. Nearly half (42%) plan to require COVID-19 vaccination prior to employees returning to office/location-based work. 3

4 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS BY SECTION 6 RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS 8 FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATION 10 COVID-19'S IMPACT ON RELOCATION 11 COVID-19'S WORKFORCE PLANNING IMPACT 13 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 16 EMPLOYEES DECLINING RELOCATION 18 SPOUSE/PARTNER ASSISTANCE 20 RELOCATION POLICY 32 RELOCATION REIMBURSEMENT 34 LUMP SUM USE 40 COST COVERAGE 45 OUTSOURCING 46 INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS SURVEY Highlights Atlas is pleased to bring you this 54th edition of our annual survey, the industry's first and longest-running investigation into corporate relocation policies and practices. ATLAS IS IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL As we have done every year since 1968, we consider the demographic, geopolitical, and economic shifts affecting our industry. We analyze the findings and uncover the trends to more clearly understand the evolving challenges and learn how we, as relocation professionals, can answer them. 4

5 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS WHO RESPONDED? Invited via , 420 decision-makers completed an online questionnaire between January 14 and March 1, Each respondent has responsibility for relocation and is employed by a company that has either relocated employees during the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year. 60% 20% 9% 5% 1% 4% Service Manufacturing/ Processing Financial Wholesale/ Retail Government/ Military Other COMPANY SIZES WE SURVEYED 32% are small companies FEWER THAN 500 SALARIED EMPLOYEES 35% are midsize companies 500-4,999 SALARIED EMPLOYEES 34% are large companies 5,000+ SALARIED EMPLOYEES More than half (54%) work in firms that relocate employees internationally. For complete results, interactive graphs, and historical insights, see atlasvanlines.com/corporate-relocation/survey. 5

6 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY RELOCATION VOLUME & BUDGETS 2020 was a challenging year for the relocation industry; one out of three firms responding say relocation volumes decreased overall. This is similar across company size; however, there are companies that saw increases in relocation. Nearly half of midsize firms responding say they saw increases in relocation, but the impact of these higher volumes for some firms was muted by most firms across size seeing static or reduced volumes. Among firms relocating employees internationally, nearly 40% saw decreases in international volumes last year. Ironically, while midsize firms are the most likely to say relocation volumes increased overall, nearly half say they pulled back internationally, indicating any volume increases were domestic and not internationally driven. Across size, two out of three firms say international relocation volumes declined or stayed static rather than increased in Almost half of respondents saw budgets increase in 2020, but this was likely driven by necessity as companies responded to the additional challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic rather than increased volumes. Roughly two out of three companies say the COVID-19 pandemic was the external factor that had the most significant impact on relocations last year. Midsize and large firms were the most likely to see budgets increased (48% and 54%, respectively), compared to only one out of three small firms. One out of four companies across size say budgets decreased, indicating lower volumes also saw some companies pull back on relocation budgets as well. Even with the challenges of 2020, the outlook for 2021 is optimistic. Around half of firms responding expect increases in both overall and international relocation volumes, as well as relocation budgets. Large firms are the most optimistic, with almost two out of three expecting increases. While there are still some firms expecting decreases in volumes, this is roughly half or fewer of those seeing decreased volumes (overall and international) in % 38 % saw decreases in overall relocation volumes saw decreases in international relocation volumes 6

7 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q5a Overall Relocation Volume Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during [this year] will Decrease Stay the Same Increase 60% 40% 20% 0% 51% 35% 14% Q5b Relocation Budget Expectation Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] will Decrease Stay the Same Increase 60% 40% 20% 0% 50% 37% 13% Q47b International Relocation Volume Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will Decrease Stay the Same Increase 60% 40% 20% 0% 56% 31% 13%

8 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY % 20 % say hiring/employment issues (staff reductions/delayed hiring) impacted relocation volumes say expansion of virtual/remote work impacted relocation volumes FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATION 8 The COVID-19 pandemic eclipsed all other factors impacting relocation last year. Roughly two out of three companies say this had the most significant impact in Second place goes to economic conditions, which increased to levels near prior recessions (37% vs. 44%+). However, COVID-19 saw impacts roughly twice that of economic conditions and far more than any other factor. From , the key external factor affecting relocation volumes was the lack of qualified local talent. Only one in four firms say the lack of available talent was a significant issue impacting relocation in 2020, roughly half that of the previous nine years, lower than the Great Recession (31%: 2009), and near levels not seen since the early to mid-1990s. This is a dramatic shift away from talent needs being a key driver of relocation. As a relocation driver, company growth falls below the recessionary levels of (20% vs. 24%-33%). However, one out of three firms continue to report that volumes are affected by expansion (facility, new territories, or international), indicating efforts to expand the company footprint continue to be a larger driver than growth, similar to 2019 (32% vs. 39%). The impact of budget constraints on volumes remains elevated for a third straight year (20%: 2020 & 20%: 2019, 16%: 2018, vs. 13%) and equally weighted to company growth. While within historic ranges for recovery, its elevation over previous years is an indication of continued pressure to contain costs. More than one out of four companies indicate hiring/ employment issues (staff reductions/furloughs/ layoffs or delayed onboarding/hiring) impacted relocation volumes in One out of five companies say the expansion of virtual/remote work played a role in the number of relocations performed last year. Across company size, the COVID-19 pandemic is the factor with the greatest impact on relocation volumes in Midsize and large companies cite it more often than small firms, but more than half still say it was the main issue. Hiring/employment issues (staff reductions/furloughs/layoffs or delayed onboarding/hiring) also saw similar levels of impact across firms of all sizes. Large firms were most affected by COVID-19 (62%), with expansion efforts (35%), competition growth (34%), and hiring/employment issues (reductions/delayed hiring) (30%) nearly equal in weight after the pandemic. For midsize firms, the biggest impact on relocation resulted from COVID-19 (69%), followed by economic conditions (42%) and expansion efforts (36%). Small firms biggest issue was COVID-19 (53%), followed by economic conditions (41%) and hiring/employment issues (reductions/delayed hiring) (30%). Midsize and small firms are more likely to say economic conditions impacted relocation volumes last year than large firms (41%+ vs. 28%). Conversely, competition growth impacted large companies far more than smaller ones (34% vs. 21%). Both midsize and large firms were more impacted by expansion efforts than small firms (35%+ vs. 25%).

9 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 4% Political/Regulatory Environment Significant Impact 3% 15% 9% 13% 13% 16% 0% % 18% Political/regulatory environments (domestic or international) as a notable impact on relocation volumes continue to be elevated and trending higher than most prior years. The percentage of firms reporting political/regulatory issues as having a significant influence remains similar to the highest levels seen in Political and regulatory issues, including visa/immigration restrictions, travel bans/closed borders, and others, continue to affect the number of relocations being performed by companies. More than one out of four large companies say this had a notable impact last year, and large companies and were far more likely to be impacted than smaller firms. Q11 Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations [last year]? Lack of Qualified People Locally Economic Conditions Real Estate Market COVID-19 Pandemic 62% 37% 24% 16% Note: results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. Q12 Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations [last year]? Company Growth Expansion (All Types) Budget Constraints Hiring/Employment (delayed/reductions) 32% 29% 20% Note: results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. 9

10 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY COVID-19'S IMPACT ON RELOCATION The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were pervasive for people across the globe, with industries and life disrupted at levels not seen since World War II and the polio epidemic in the 1940s and '50s, respectively. Relocation/workforce mobility saw numerous changes as well. In 2020, roughly one out of two companies say the COVID-19 pandemic: Increased the complexity of relocation administration Increased relocation costs Increased relocation policy changes Increased the difficulty of recruiting employees to relocate Additionally, nearly 4 out of 10 say it reduced the number of relocations performed last year. Roughly two out of three midsize and large companies say COVID-19 increased complexity of relocation administration, far more often than small firms. Large firms are the most likely to say relocation policy changes increased in response to the pandemic. Small firms are the least likely to say there were increases in relocation. Across other factors, the impacts on firms were remarkably similar, regardless of company size. In 2021, while more than a third of firms believe the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will remain the same as in 2020, more than 40% of firms believe the impact will result in: Increased relocations Increased complexity of relocation administration Increased relocation costs Increased relocation policy changes Increased difficulty of recruiting employees to relocate Large firms are the most likely to expect increases in the complexity of relocation administration. recruiting difficulty and relocation costs in 2021 compared to smaller firms. One out of four small firms expect relocation volumes to decline in response to the pandemic this year, more so than larger firms. Across other factors, projected impacts are similar across firm size next year. Q15a&b COVID Impact Increase Stay About the Same Decrease Number of Relocations Performed Complexity of Relocation Administration % 26% 36% % 26% 17% % 35% 17% % 41% 18% Relocation Costs Relocation Policy Changes % 31% 19% % 40% 13% % 38% 12% % 44% 12% Difficulty Recruiting Employees to Relocate % 29% 15% % 37% 21% 10

11 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS COVID-19'S WORKFORCE PLANNING IMPACT INTERNSHIPS 8 out of 10 firms say they made changes to their internships due to the COVID-19 pandemic in % reduced their internship program, one out of three offered a hybrid (on-site/remote) internship program, and one out of four offered virtual-only internships. One out of four canceled their internship program last year. Around half of midsize and large firms reduced their internship programs; only one out of three small firms did so. Large firms were the most likely to go hybrid with their internships (40%), compared to around one out of four smaller firms. A fifth or more of firms across size canceled their internship program in Three out of four firms say they anticipate changes to their internships due to the COVID-19 pandemic in out of 10 are planning for hybrid internship programs, one out of three for internship reductions, and one out of four virtual-only internships. Only 1 out of 10 plan to cancel their internship program this year. Almost half (44%) of large companies plan to go hybrid with their internships, compared to just over a third of smaller firms. Large companies are the most likely to anticipate reducing internship programs (43%) compared to 33% of midsize and 29% of small firms. More than one out of four midsize and large firms are planning virtual-only options; only one out of six small firms are doing so. Q18: Post Pandemic Workforce Composition Overall Less than Fully Remote On-site/Office 31% 28% 31% 26% Hybrid Other 29% 31% 34% 31% 37% 3% 44% 35% 34% 2% 4% 2% RETURN-TO-WORK PLANS As companies navigate COVID-19 and prepare for what work looks like in the future, there is a lot of uncertainty. When asked about return-to-work plans, nearly half (42%) plan to require COVID-19 vaccination prior to employees returning to office/ location-based work. This is most popular among small and midsize firms (44% & 47%), compared to large firms (35%). The most popular return-to-work plans for workforce management in 2021 and beyond are: Phased-in/staggered return to work (office/locationbased) (37%) Hybrid (in office/remote) arrangements for employees (32%) More than one out of four companies say they have a full return-to-work plan; however, one out of four either say they are providing allowances for certain areas of the company to remain remote or allowing employees to choose whether to remain remote or return to the office. Overall, going forward companies predict that around a third of their workforce will be fully remote. Small firms predict that almost half (44%) of their workforce will return fully to office/on-site location work; larger firms only expect around one out of three employees to fully return. Companies predict that more than a fourth of their employees will be hybrid workers, regardless of company size. 95% of companies participating in the survey believe at least some portion of their workforce will be remote, either full time or partially. The vast majority of companies hold this view across size (89% of small, 97% of midsize and 99% of large). As companies shift to remote work environments, nine out of ten (across size) have constraints in place for employees working from home. The most popular stipulations are working during certain hours/time zone availability, (40%) and office setup rules (36%). Half (48%) of midsize firms stipulate work hour availability, compared to around one out of three small or large firms. More than one out of four companies are looking at salary adjustments/reductions if employees are living in areas with lower costs of living. One out of three large companies are requiring employees to live in a specific geographic area, compared to one out of four smaller firms. 11

12 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Q17 Post COVID Return to Work Plans As your company prepares for what work looks like after the COVID-19 pandemic ends, what plans are forming for workforce management? 44% 42% 47% 35% Overall Less than % 38% 40% 32% 32% 34% 35% 32% 33% 29% 29% 26% 27% 26% 27% 29% 29% 25% 23% 23% 25% 19% 15% 16% Required COVID-19 vaccination prior to return to office/ locationbased work Phased-in/staggered return to work (office/locationbased) Hybrid (in office/remote) arrangements for employees Allow employees option to choose to work remotely or return to office/ location-based work Full return to work plan (office/locationbased) Allow specific areas of company to remain remote, others must return to office/ locationbased work Majority will be remote workforce (limited office/ location-based staff) Q19 Remote Workforce Constraints Work during certain hours/time zone availability Office setup rules Salary adjustment/reduction (if lower cost of living) Live in a specific geographic area Located within a certain radius of a specific office location Live in a specific time zone Near mass transit for potential travel Other No constraints 40% 36% 29% 29% 23% 18% 14% 2% 9% Q20: Relocation Policy/Program Changes due to COVID-19 Were Made in 2020 (Top 5) Are Anticipated in 2021 (Top 5) Financial assistance for COVID-related expenses 39% Financial assistance for COVID-related expenses 31% Increased flexibility for relocation timelines Offered virtual/ remote work assignments 31% Increased flexibility for relocation timelines 26% Offering virtual/ 27% remote work 24% assignments Delayed/postponed relocations Delayed/postponed 24% 20% relocations Expanded use of lump sums Offering EBT or shortterm assignments 23% 20% 12

13 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q46 Additional Services Requested due to COVID-19 (Top 10) 59% 52% 44% 42% 42% 39% 39% 25% 25% 22% Wear masks Wear gloves Perform COVID-19 exposure checks Maintain social distancing Use hand sanitizer frequently Perform fever checks Wear PPE Sanitization of Origin Residence (after loading) Wipe down boxes at delivery Quarantine Support Services RELOCATION IN 2021 READY TO RUN While the world pressed pause in 2020, companies juggled safety needs and the economic pressures of the pandemic to keep business going, even if the physical movement of talent slowed markedly. Although the world of work is projected to look different post-covid, getting talent to the right places continues to be a priority. Companies indicate a readiness to be flexible, but persistent, in keeping their employees connected and working together. Creative arrangements and timetables for relocation continue, but the view for 2021 is a working world ready to get moving % 48 % say company s overall financial performance worsened say U.S. economy worsened ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Post-Pandemic Expectations Are Mostly Positive Even though one out of three companies say their financial performance worsened in 2020, and one out of two say the U.S. economy worsened, half or more expect 2021 to be better on both fronts. The vast majority of firms expect either stability or improvement in the U.S. economy in 2021, with a greater percentage expecting further improvement compared to 2020 s experience (52% vs. 24%). Although not as high as some other years, this sentiment runs similar to higher overall recovery levels (51%+). Most firms expect improvement or stability in their company s overall financial performance this year as well. However, expectations for improvement are muted compared to the past decade (56% vs. 64%+), and almost 1 out of 10 indicate they believe their company s performance could worsen. Expectations are similar to 2008 (prior to the Great Recession), so caution about how the impact of COVID-19 could still play out for individual companies is evident. 13

14 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Globally, more than a third of firms indicate the performance of both emerging and developed global market economies worsened in Expectations for 2021 trend positive, but there is some dissonance. Overall expectations are for growth vs. stability for developed global market economies as the percentage of firms expecting improvement is higher (48% vs. 38%). However, expectations for emerging global markets are nearly balanced (43% vs. 44%, growth vs. stability), and firms in both emerging and developed markets see projections for worsening performances remain roughly double that of three years ago (13% vs. 6%, emerging; 13% vs. 7%, developed). These projections indicate the global picture is optimistic but not one of accelerated recovery from the challenges of More than a third of firms say the U.S. real estate market worsened in Expectations for improvement for the U.S. real estate market see notable levels of optimism, higher than the last three years (50% vs. 37%+) and similar to 2017 (55%). While 15% of firms project the market will worsen in 2021, this is similar to the past 4 years (10%-18%) and may reflect challenges being faced with real estate inventory levels. Prior to the interventions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, interest rates were rising to stave off inflation as housing costs were notably higher after roughly eight years of recovery from the Great Recession. Interest rates are now hovering near historic lows, home prices and values continue to see increases, and market inventory is tight in many places across the country. Most firms expect further improvement or stability in the U.S. real estate market during 2021, barring unforeseen challenges from the pandemic or other areas. Midsize and small firms are the most likely to say the U.S. economy and developed and emerging market economies' performances worsened in Experiences in the U.S. real estate market and individual company performance were largely similar regardless of firm size. Across company size, half or more firms anticipate better financial performances in 2021, and more than a third expect improvement in both developed and emerging global market economies. Midsize firms are the most optimistic for their individual company performances (67%) and emerging economies (55%), and both midsize (55%) and large firms (51%) are more optimistic than small (38%) for developed economies. Roughly half or more of firms across size expect further improvement in the U.S. economy, and around a third expect stability. Midsize firms are the most optimistic about the U.S. economy (60%) overall. Expectations for the U.S. real estate market are mostly similar across size, as roughly half expect improvement and around a third expect stability. One-tenth or more of firms across size expect the market to worsen, with small firms the most likely to expect declines (22%). More than a third of companies said economic performances across trade blocs worsened in Mid-size and small firms say trade bloc performances worsened last year far more often than large firms. When asked about expectations for 2021 economic performance by trade bloc, projections are essentially positive. U.S./CANADA/MEXICO Among all firms responding, 85% predict stability or improvement and 15% predict worsening. Small firms are the least optimistic: one in five expect the North American trade bloc economic performance to worsen, and only 35% expect improvement. More midsize (50%) and large firms (41%) expect improvement comparatively. UNITED KINGDOM Around 9 out of 10 international firms predict stability or improvement for the United Kingdom s economy in 2021, while roughly one in eight predict worsening conditions. Midsize firms are the most optimistic, with nearly two out of three expecting improvement. Nearly half of large firms also expect improvement, with only around a third of small firms holding this optimism. EUROPEAN UNION Among all firms responding, 85% anticipate stability or improvement in 2021 and 15% expect worsening conditions. Small firms are the least optimistic, with only around one in three expecting the EU trade bloc to see improved performance. Midsize firms are the most positive, with 51% expecting improvement. Expectations among large international firms are essentially evenly split between improvement (42%) and stability (44%). After the extreme pressures presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is encouraging to see optimism as companies look toward the future this year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, smaller companies views on the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic appear harsher. These firms likely endured greater difficulties than large firms, which have greater diversification of risk. While acknowledging that many experienced hardships, most are looking toward the future with hope. 14

15 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Your Company Q14 Anticipated Performance Compared to [last year], please indicate what you anticipate for [next year]: Better Same Worse % 35% 56% % U.S. Economy % 52% % U.S. Real Estate Market % 50% 2021 Emerging Global Markets Q14 Anticipated Performance Compared to [last year], please indicate what you anticipate for [next year]: Better Same Worse % 44% 43% % Developed Global Markets 38% 48% Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. 15

16 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY EMPLOYEES DECLINING RELOCATION In 2020, the most frequent reason given by employees declining relocation was health concerns/illness/the COVID-19 pandemic, both overall (52%) and internationally (44%). During the previous seven years, family issues/ties took the top spot, while spouse/partner employment held second place as the reasons given for declined relocations. Family issues/ties (41%) and spouse/partner employment (32%) are now in second and third place, respectively. The impact of housing/mortgage concerns falls to the lowest level historically. The COVID-19 pandemic is the prime reason for declined relocations last year, followed by dual-career households with family commitments. Across company size, health concerns/illness/covid-19 pandemic is the top reason for declined relocations last year. This is cited by more than half of firms across size at similar levels. Family issues/ties falls to the second-place spot among firms of all sizes. It is cited most often by midsize firms, similar to COVID-19 (48% vs. 54%) and spouse/partner employment (44%). However, this reason continues to decline notably overall, from around two-thirds of firms from and over half (52%) in 2019 to 41% in Only one out of three large firms indicate it was a reason for declined relocations. Spouse/partner employment continues to decline from the far higher levels recorded from (52%+) and dips lower than the period of the Great Recession and recovery (39%-48%, ) to 32%. The impact of spouse/partner employment had fallen to 39% in 2011, likely due to the Great Recession s effect on employment opportunities, but it had returned to higher, historically normative levels post-recession. This shift downward may reflect the impact of higher unemployment levels during the COVID-19 pandemic (fewer dual-income households), as well as flexible work arrangements (telecommuting/ work from home) being leveraged by many companies during this time. At its lowest point in more than 15 years, housing/ mortgage concerns remains at pre-recession levels for the sixth time since 2007 overall and for the fifth year in a row across company size. Only one out of six firms indicate it still played a role in their employees decisions to stay put. One out of three companies say employees expressed concerns about the cost of living in the new location when declining relocation. One out of four say employees stated the destination location was undesirable, they had no desire to relocate, or they had personal reasons for refusing the opportunity. Persuading employees to relocate continues to present many challenges. Q9a Select Reasons Relocations Declined: What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Housing/Mortgage Concerns Family Issues/Ties Spouse's/Partner's Employment Health Concerns/Illness/COVID-19 Pandemic 41% 52% 32% 17%

17 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 6 out of 10 respondents say they had employees decline relocations in 2020, in the midrange historically. Around one in three say the number refusing relocation increased over the previous year. Employee reluctance edges higher and remains above post-recession levels for a third year (31% vs. 29%: 2019, 26%: 2018 vs. 11%-18% during ). This comes after employee reluctance trended lower in (18%- 22%) and returned to the higher levels of 2008 & 2014 (28%) and 2009 (29%). Interestingly, a fourth of firms saw reluctance decrease last year as well, a dramatic shift from previous years, indicating the reluctance to accept relocations also saw notable declines. This mixed picture is not entirely unexpected, as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been uneven across many industries, negatively impacting some and dramatically improving others. Coupled with higher unemployment rates, there are likely a multitude of factors at play in making some employees more open to relocation and others more resistant. More than half of small firms saw employees decline relocation last year, similar to , 2018 & 2019 levels (52% vs. 50%, 48%, 55% & 46%), notably higher than 2017 (39%) and above historical norms. Increased reluctance also remains above previous recessionary levels for small firms for a third year (31% vs. 25%: 2019 & 26%: 2018 vs. 15%-19%). However, one in four say reluctance decreased, which is also a notable shift. Increased reluctance at midsize firms also remains notably higher for a third year (34% vs. 35%: 2019 & 32%: 2018 vs. 20%: 2017), staying above the level (30%) and recessionary ranges (20%-30%) for the previous four years. However, almost one in three say reluctance decreased, roughly three times higher than 2019 (30% vs. 12%). Increased reluctance among large firms is nearly identical to the higher level in 2019 (29% vs. 28%) and above postrecession recovery ranges (7%-21%) following an increase in (19% & 18% vs. 12%: 2016). However, it remains markedly lower than recessionary levels (40%+) for large firms overall. Additionally, one in five say reluctance decreased, but this is similar to 2019 (15%) and not a dramatic shift. 6 out of 10 firms saw employees decline relocation last year, in the mid range historically. Q9 Number of Employees Declining Relocation: Did the number of employees declining relocation (last year) increase or decrease from the previous year? Increase from the previous year Decrease from the previous year 31% 25%

18 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY SPOUSE/PARTNER ASSISTANCE Q42a & 47k Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance: Percentage of firms offering this assistance Internationally Overall 90% 79% Q41 Spouse Employment Impact: How frequently is an employee's relocation affected by the employment status of that employee's spouse/partner? Seldom/Never Almost Always/Frequently 68% 32% The challenge of dual-income households with family commitments remains a key issue. For the past six years, 6 out of 10 firms stated spousal/partner employment almost always or frequently affected relocations.

19 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS In 2021, this rose to two out of three firms (68%), the highest level ever recorded. We see continued efforts to manage this impact with the highest historical levels of employment assistance for spouses/partners being offered, overall and internationally, for a second straight year. The impact of spouse/partner employment sees large firms most affected in 2021 compared to midsize and small firms (80% vs. 64% & 60%), reaching the highest level ever seen historically. An increase of 20%+ percentage points since 2013 remains in effect for midsize firms (64% vs. 43%) after hitting 54% in 2014 and running 63%-68% during This impact for small firms remains lower than 2017 & 2019 (60% vs. 64% & 68%), similar to 2018 & 2020 (54% & 58%) and at a recent historically normative level overall. With the impact of spouse/partner employment well above prior historical averages for the past seven years, we see a corresponding rise in employment assistance. During this period, firms of all sizes offered assistance far more often than in previous years, with the most dramatic increases occurring this year among small and large firms compared to Among small firms, the most popular forms of help are providing interviewing skills training and networking assistance offered by a third. Nearly a third also offer resume preparation assistance (31%) or reimbursement for career transition expenses (30%). Reimbursement of career change expenses has increased to the highest level historically among small firms. The most popular forms of assistance among large firms are interviewing skills training (39%), resume preparation assistance (38%), and paying for outplacement/career services (38%). Large firms are more likely to pay for outplacement/career services for relocating spouses/ partners than small firms. At midsize firms, networking assistance (43%) and interviewing skills training (41%) are the top offerings. Roughly a third pay for outplacement/career services (34%), resume preparation assistance (30%), or to find employment outside the company (30%). Both midsize and small firms are more likely to help a spouse/partner find employment outside the company (30% & 27%) than large firms (18%). Across firms of all sizes, around one in four employees with a spouse/partner used employment assistance. In the past, far fewer small firms offered employment assistance. Among the subset of small firms that offered such benefits, higher percentages of employees took advantage of them than at larger firms. As far more firms across all sizes have added these benefits over the past seven years, usage has become comparable overall across firms of all sizes. Q42c Spouse Employment Assistance Usage: What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used this employment assistance? Overall Small Midsize Large 27% 22% 23% 24%

20 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY RELOCATION POLICY Under Pressure Adaptability & Budgets 20 The COVID-19 pandemic required unprecedented flexibility across industries, with relocation one of the most impacted. Nearly all firms made changes last year to relocation policies/programs due to COVID-19, expect to do so again in 2021, and requested additional COVID-specific services from providers to meet employee needs. The use of more adaptive relocation policy and practice while keeping costs contained became best practice after the economic challenges faced in the Great Recession. Assignment type versatility, candidate vetting, and multiple policy types continue to provide methodology options and guardrails. Fixed/flex policy, additional incentives, and cost containment strategies also allow companies to continue to flex their adaptive muscles and keep their talent mobile. COVID-19 S IMPACT POLICIES & PROVIDERS 9 out of 10 firms responding made changes to relocation policy/programs due to COVID-19 last year. The most frequent changes were financial assistance for COVID-related expenses (39%) and increased flexibility for relocation timelines (31%). One out of four companies say they offered virtual/remote work assignments, delayed/postponed relocations, or expanded use of lump sums as well. One out of five provided extensions/allowances for temporary housing, offered extended business travel (EBT) or short-term assignments, or canceled relocations altogether. Midsize firms are the most likely to have offered financial assistance for COVID-related expenses (nearly half say they did so). One out of three midsize and large firms increased flexibility for relocation timelines; only a fourth of small firms did so. One out of three large firms expanded the use of lump sums in response to the pandemic, roughly twice as often as smaller firms. One out of four midsize firms canceled relocations and are the most likely to say they did so as a policy change in out of 10 firms responding anticipate having to make additional changes to relocation policy/programs due to COVID-19 in The most anticipated change is offering financial assistance for COVID-related expenses (31%). One out of four companies say they anticipate increasing flexibility for relocation timelines or offering virtual/remote work assignments as a shift in policy this year. One out of five expect to offer extended business travel (EBT) or short-term assignments, delay/postpone relocations, or expand lump sum use as well. Both midsize and large firms expect to offer financial assistance for COVID-related expenses, increased flexibility for relocation timelines, and EBT or short-term assignments far more often than small firms (34% vs. 23%, 29%+ vs. 17%, & 22%+ vs. 12%, respectively). One out of four large firms expect to delay/postpone relocations, more often than smaller firms. One out of four firms across company size anticipate offering virtual/remote work assignments as a policy/ program change this year. 9 out of 10 firms say they asked relocation providers to perform additional services to meet employee needs due to COVID-19. More than half asked relocation service providers to wear masks and/or gloves, and nearly half requested the performance of COVID-19 exposure checks, social distancing, and frequent hand sanitizer use. More than a third asked that personal protective equipment (PPE) be worn and fever checks be performed. One out of four requested that boxes be wiped down at delivery and that origin residences be sanitized after loading. Midsize firms were the most likely to ask for mask wearing, social distancing, and fever checks compared to both larger and smaller firms. More than half of firms across size asked service providers to wear gloves. MULTIPLE POLICY TYPES & PRACTICES LEVERAGED; TRADITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS REMAIN THE MAJORITY Relocation programs remain quite diverse. As in the past several years, the majority of relocation professionals manage policies for domestic (76%) and international relocations (69%), along with policies for short-term/temporary assignments (60%), permanent international transfers (52%), and international localization (51%). Essentially half maintain intraregional (international) (48%) and extended-business travel policies (47%) or have a policy for long-distance commuter arrangements (48%). Most firms continue to define levels, or tiers, within policies. The larger the firm, the more likely its overall domestic policy includes levels. Firms using levels manage essentially

21 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS two or more such policies on average, across company size, for both domestic and international relocations. Levels are based on a variety of factors; however, the top two domestically, across firm size, are job/grade level and position/job title. Job/grade level is essentially equal in weight to position/job title at midsize (48% vs. 50%) and small (44% vs. 43%) firms, while job/grade level outweighs position/job title at large firms (44% vs. 34%). Domestically, homeowner/ renter status is more likely to be a consideration at small and large firms than midsize (31% & 32% vs. 17%), while assignment location is more likely to be a tier/level consideration at midsize and large firms than small ones (35% & 30% vs. 16%) Q22 Formal Relocation Policies % 60% 47% 48% Domestic Short-term/ Temporary Extended Business Travel Long-distance Commuter Q47f Formal Relocation Policies* % 52% 51% 48% International* Permanent Transfers (Intl)* Localization (Intl)* Intra-Regional (Intl)* * Percentage of those who indicated they relocate employees internationally (Q2) 21

22 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY CANDIDATE ASSESSMENTS Over the last seven years, the majority of firms have used candidate assessments to support relocations. This year, 86% of firms assessed candidates prior to making offers, reaching a historical high for a second straight year. This percentage is similar to most recent years and maintains a marked increase over the roughly half of firms that assessed candidates from 2012 to Usage slightly surpasses the highest level recorded for midsize firms (86% vs. 85%: 2019), similar to 2020 (83%) and well above other recent years (74%+). Candidate assessment use exceeds the highest level recorded for small firms (86%), similar to last year s prior historic high (78%) and notably above (67% & 72%, respectively). Usage also surpasses the previous high recorded for large firms last year (87% vs. 76%), remaining dramatically above (54% & 64%, respectively). Roughly half of midsize firms perform candidate assessments for all relocations; one out of three small and large firms do so. Across company size, more than one out of three firms assess candidates for domestic relocations, which is roughly twice as often as the historical norms of the past six years. Q38 Candidate Assessments Performed: Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers? Overall Trendline Overall 86% The most popular method historically has been performing assessments for all relocations. This year, it is now matched by use for domestic relocations (37%) for the top spot. Performing assessments for all relocations remains similar to the past six years overall (37% vs. 38%-48%) and roughly double the 21% levels reported from 2012 to The decline appears to be largely driven by small firms, as only 33% performed candidate assessments for all relocations, a marked decline from and (43%-50%) and lower than 2018 (39%). However, it remains higher than in , when essentially one-fourth did. Assessments for all relocations among large firms remain similar to the past three years (33% vs. 29%-37%) but lower than (42%+), albeit remaining roughly double the percentages seen in Around half of midsize firms continue to perform candidate assessments for all relocations, similar to the previous six years and more than twice the historical rate. Q38 Candidate Assessments Performed for All Relocations: Percentage of firms indicating candidate assessments are performed for all relocations Overall Small Midsize Large 33% 47% 37% 33%

23 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q23b Use of Fixed/Flex Policy in Relocation: Coverage of specific items (e.g., fixed components) employee level dependent Coverage of specific items (e.g., fixed components) across all employees Coverage of specific items (e.g., fixed components) policy dependent 54% 38% 20% Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (employee level dependent) Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (all employees) Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (policy dependent) 43% 39% 25% Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (employee level dependent) Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (all employees) Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (policy dependent) 40% 38% 29%

24 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY FIXED BENEFITS/FLEX BENEFITS LIST-DRIVEN POLICY Over the past decade, built-in flexibility for relocation policies has become an undisputed best practice. Many companies do this by identifying what relocation costs are considered core coverage or by allowing relocation funds to be used on select services from which an employee can choose. Stipulations by employee level and/or policy are often built in, while many companies simply make these types of flexibility available to all relocating employees. Q23c Core Coverage/Fixed Benefits Final move (travel expenses) % From 2015 to 2019, more than 80% of firms used aspects of fixed/flex policy, a marked increase from Usage jumped to 96% in and remains at 94%+ across company size for a second straight year. Offering some form of flexibility in how relocation benefits can be used is critical to meet the diversity of employee needs. The option to cover specific items as fixed/core benefits or allow flexible use of all or a portion of relocation benefits can be made available to all employees, be employee level dependent, or be policy dependent. Coverage for core components remains the most popular option. However, allowing the flexible use of relocation benefit coverage amounts (either the full amount or a portion) sees far greater leverage than in years past. More than half of firms say they offer the coverage of specific items in relocation for all employees, matching the high in 2015 and 2020 (54%). Across company size, half or more of firms indicate doing so. Use of policy level dependent coverage doubles at small firms (20% vs. 11%) compared to 2020 but remains essentially the same at midsize and large. 4 out of 10 firms across size say the coverage of specific items in relocation can also be employee level dependent, and less than 10% of firms across size say it is not offered in any capacity. 4 out of 10 firms say flexible use of the full relocation benefit amount is offered to all employees or is employee level dependent. Large firms are the most likely to make full benefit availability employee level dependent (49%) rather than offering it to all (38%) or making it policy dependent (24%). Small firms are more closely split between these options, while midsize firms are more likely to offer it to all or based on employee level. One out of five midsize firms say flexible use is policy dependent, while around a tenth of firms overall say it isn t offered at all. Having the option to flexibly use a portion of relocation coverage is offered by around 4 out of 10 firms across size to all employees or is employee level dependent. One out of three large firms say this is likely to be policy dependent, compared to around a fourth of smaller firms. One out of eight don t offer this kind of flexibility in any capacity. Home finding trip(s) (travel expenses) Temporary housing Household goods shipping Storage Miscellaneous allowances Real estate costs-destination/ purchasing Rental assistance/ transaction costs Real estate costs-origin/ selling 41% 39% 38% 33% 40% 32% 32% 31% 26% 24

25 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q23a Fixed/Flex List-Driven Policy Use: Does your relocation utilize aspects of a fixed/flex benefits, list-driven policy? Overall Trendline Overall 96% Coverage of core components remains the most popular aspect of fixed/flex policy. For a sixth year, we dug deeper into what falls into this category. Overall, the top components continue to be travel expenses final move (41%), travel expenses for home-finding trips (41%), temporary housing (39%), and household goods shipping (38%) but the percentage covering these items declines notably compared to the previous four years of comparable data for all but home-finding trips. The percentage of companies offering real estate sales assistance as a fixed benefit is also markedly lower compared to the past four years (26% vs. 32%-41%), and those offering miscellaneous allowances and storage are slightly lower as well. Large firms are more likely than midsize or small to consider storage and miscellaneous allowances core benefits, while both midsize and large firms are more likely to view household goods shipping as a core benefit than small. Far more midsize firms view temporary housing as a fixed benefit compared to large or small firms, and midsize firms are the most likely to view real estate sales costs as a fixed benefit. Coverage is similar across firm size for home-finding trips, the final move, real estate purchase costs, and rental assistance Core Coverage/Fixed Benefits By Company Size What type(s) of relocation components are considered fixed benefits within your relocation policy? Less Than ,999 5, % 40% 39% 40% 34% 36% 43% 29% 40% 28% 36% 30% 42% 27% 31% 31% 26% 20% 38% 44% 47% 41% 30% 31% 27% 31% 32% Travel- Home Finding Travel- Final Move Temporary Housing Household Goods Shipping Storage Real Estate Costs-Destination /purchasing Misc. Expenses Rental Costs Real Estate Costs- Origin/selling 25

26 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY INCENTIVES In addition to having flexibility in policy, the ability to use additional incentives to persuade key employees to take relocation assignments remains crucial. Over the past seven years, most firms across company size indicate they are offering additional, non-standard incentives or policy exceptions. Since 2008, the overall use of incentives/exceptions has grown more than 30% (91% vs. 60%: 2008). Relocation/sign-on bonuses remains the number one incentive for a third year across company size. However, at both small and large companies, extended temporary housing benefits is a close second. Both extended temporary housing benefits and costof-living adjustments (COLAs) round out the top three incentives at small and midsize firms. At large firms, a guarantee of employment contract (for a specific length of time) is more popular than COLAs. The percentage of firms offering extended temporary housing benefits last year falls to a historic low, roughly half that of when measurement began (38% vs. 72%: 2013). While relocation/sign-on bonuses and COLAs being offered trend notably lower, their declines are not as dramatic. More than half of midsize firms offered relocation/signon bonuses, similar to last year (52% vs. 56%) and far more often than small or large firms, which saw marked decreases (41% vs. 60%, 39% vs. 58%, respectively). Almost half of midsize firms used COLAs in salary; only 34% of small and 25% of large firms did so. Both midsize and large firms remain 2x or more likely than small to offer loss-on-sale protection or buyer value options for origin homes as incentives. A telecommuting option (1-2 days a week) was flexed by around a third of firms and at similar levels across company size. Incentives continue to prove highly successful; essentially 9 out of 10 firms report incentives work almost always or frequently, consistent with historical levels. Combined with usage at such high levels, this data indicates that being able to flex in this way is also essential for companies to mitigate employee reluctance to relocate and family considerations that place downward pressures on mobility. Q8a Additional Incentives Offered: Did your company offer additional non-standard incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Overall Small Midsize Large 95% 92% 87% 91%

27 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q8b Additional Incentives Offered (Top 3): Which of the following additional non-standard incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? COLAs in Salary at New Location Extended Temporary Housing Benefits Relocation/Sign-on Bonuses 44% 34% 38% COST CONTAINMENT Even with built-in flexibility and high usage rates of incentives/ exceptions, cost containment measures are also heavily utilized. The use of cost containment reaches another historical high, which shows the last seven years of near-constant elevated usage of these tactics to keep relocation budgets within scope is a widely accepted best practice. Prior to 2014, far fewer companies indicated using these types of measures, and those that did were far more likely to be large companies. Company size no longer plays a role, as overall usage is now similar across firms of all sizes. This year, we asked if companies planned to use cost containment tactics in 2021 as well, and current use and projected use stays nearly constant. Even while companies flex to move talent, they actively work to keep costs down. Q25a&b Cost Containment Methods Used: By Company Size: (Planned) 2018 Overall 86% % % 82% Less Than ,999 5, % 86% 85% 87% 86% 85% % 84% 76% 77% % 60% 70% 61% 64% (Planned) 27

28 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY From , the top cost containment method was using lump sum payments for relocations. Those using lump sums for cost control falls by nearly half in 2020 (20% vs. 40%) and is significantly lower than the prior four years. Planned usage remains far lower for 2021 as well, and this trend holds across company size. Lump-sum payments may no longer be viewed primarily as a cost control method but may simply provide other benefits for relocation management. One out of every four moves by firms participating in the survey is estimated to have been entirely paid for by lump sums, and it remains a popular reimbursement method for both transferees and new hires. For the first time, more than half of firms say they use lump-sum payments for short-term, temporary assignments, increasing for a third straight year (52% vs. 44% & 42%). Use of lump sums for international long-term assignments remains similar to the higher level of 2020 (35% vs. 40%), and the majority of firms continue to use lump-sum payments for domestic relocations. The top method used to control costs was to limit miscellaneous expense allowance benefits in Large firms were the most likely to use this tactic (36%), followed by mid-size firms (32%). Small firms were much less likely to have done so (24%). Both midsize and large firms plan to use this option more often than small firms in 2021 to control costs (29% & 33% vs. 17%). Both midsize and large firms were more likely to review/ renegotiate supplier contracts last year compared to small (32% & 35% vs. 20%). One out of four across company size plan to do so in Midsize and small firms were more likely to cap relocation benefits to contain costs in 2020 compared to large firms (27% & 29% vs. 17%). This holds true for 2021 as well (29% & 26% vs. 11%). Large firms were more likely to restructure policy tiers/ eligibility for benefits last year compared to small firms (35% vs. 22%). However, one out of four across company size plan to do so in One out of four firms across size say they offered shortterm/extended travel/commuter arrangements rather than relocating employees in 2020 as a cost containment measure. Similar percentages plan to do so in Q25a Cost Containment Measures (Top 6): Limit Misc. Allowance Benefits Review/Renegotiate Supplier Contracts Restructure Policy Tiers/Eligibility for Benefits Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts Offer Short-term/ EBT/Commuter Arrangements Use Lump-Sum Payments for Relocation Q25b Cost Containment Measures (Top 6): Planned for 2021 Limit Misc. Allowance Benefits 20% 24% 24% 31% 29% 29% 26% Review/Renegotiate Supplier Contracts Restructure Policy Tiers/ Eligibility for Benefits Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts Offer Short-term/EBT/ Commuter Arrangements Use Lump-Sum Payments for Relocation 25% 25% 22% 21% 18% 28

29 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q25a&b Cost Containment Measures Use of Lump Sum Payments for Relocation: Overall Small Midsize Large 22% 21% 20% 17% 20% 18% 16% 17% (Planned) ALTERNATIVE ASSIGNMENTS Over the last seven years, most firms have come to rely on other arrangements to supplement traditional relocations. More than three out of four (78%) firms state they use alternative assignments, reaching a historic high for a second straight year. This is an increase over the past six years (61%-71%) and far more often than during The percentage of large firms using such arrangements reaches a historic high (82%), similar to 2018 & 2020 (78% & 77%), above & 2019 (68%-74%), and far above (60%-66%). Usage among midsize firms remains at last year s historic high (78%), roughly twice that of 2014 (37%) and surpassing levels (64%-75%). Increasing for a third straight year past the previous historic high (72% vs. 59%: 2017, 2020), usage among small firms is the highest ever measured, notably above & 2019 (48%-54%), 2018 (40%), and more than three times that of 2014 (19%). The methods for incorporating alternative assignments into policy vary widely. Such arrangements were birthed to meet strategic business needs geographically without incurring the costs of traditional relocations. In the past, the overwhelming policy driver was accomplishing strategic business goals. This falls to second place, with accommodating employee needs the top reason this year. With the COVID-19 pandemic presenting so many different challenges, this simply makes sense. Fewer companies indicate using them to replace long or short-term assignments or in addition to these assignment types, but slightly more say developing internal talent or maximizing budget/corporate resources is a key driver. Meeting strategic business goals edges out employee needs accommodation at small firms for the top reason for alternative assignment use (44% vs. 38%); the reverse is true at large firms, with accommodating employee needs in the top spot (43% vs. 35%). These are essentially equally weighted at midsize firms (47% & 46%). A third or more of firms use alternative assignments to develop internal talent or maximize budget/corporate resources across company size. One out of four firms use these in addition to long-term assignments across company size, and roughly one out of four use them as replacements for either long-term or short-term assignments. 29

30 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Q31 Alternative Assignments Used: Is your company utilizing "alternative assignments" (e.g., extended business travel, crossborder commuting, rotational, localization, permanent international transfers, etc.)? Overall Trendline Overall 78% Overall, the top two factors in determining whether alternative assignments are brought into play are business need (47%) and job function (44%), cited by roughly half of firms overall. Interestingly, assignment purpose and cost had historically been cited around half of the time as key factors for alternative assignment use, and these percentages fall to around a third overall. Moving up to the number three spot is career development (39%), cited slightly more often than prior years and part of the top three reasons for leveraging these assignment types for the first time. Q31a 2021 Alternative Assignments Use in Employee Mobility Policy By Company Size Less than ,999 5, % 35% 31% 33% 28% 27% 22% 11% 38% 47% 44% 46% 35% 40% 33% 35% 24% 29% 21% 22% 23% 25% 10% 15% Accommodate Employee Needs Meet Strategic Business Goals Develop Internal Talent Maximize Budget/ Corporate Resources In Addition to Long-term Assignments Replace Long-term Assignments Replace Regular Short-term Assignments In Addition to Regular Short-term Assignments 30

31 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Among large firms, job function (47%) and business need (46%) are nearly tied as the top considerations. Employee requests and career development are equally weighted for second place (36% & 34%). At midsize firms, the top factors are nearly equal as well between business need (48%) and job function (46%); however, career development (42%), employee requests (39%), and assignment purpose (39%) are closely rated secondary factors, and around one-third rate cost as pivotal. At small firms, the top factor is business need (47%), but second place goes to career development (41%) rather than job function (38%). Midsize and large firms say employee requests are a key factor in alternative assignment use far more often than small firms (39% & 36% vs. 25%), and midsize firms are the most likely to say assignment purpose plays a role. Q31b 2021 Alternative Assignments Factors by Company Size Less than ,999 5, % 47% 34% 36% 28% 30% 47% 48% 38% 46% 41% 42% 25% 39% 25% 39% 24% 34% Business Need Job Function Career Development Employee Requests Assignment Purpose Cost SUMMARY STATEMENT As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the world, companies flex the adaptive relocation policy and practice developed over the past decade and leverage even more creativity to meet new challenges. With the economic contractions and expansions being experienced as the world adapts to what the "new normal" will look like post-pandemic, it is assured that companies will continue to find ways to balance both employee needs and company budgets to keep their talent moving. 31

32 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY RELOCATION REIMBURSEMENT Continued Use of Multiple Methods, Differentiation Between Transferees & New Hires Q35 Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement: To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires? Lump Sum Partial Reimbursement Full Reimbursement Direct or Managed Cap Programs Transferee 69% 54% 53% 47% New Hire 56% 48% 41% 36% The continued use of multiple methods for reimbursement shows how companies tailor assistance to the needs of employees and businesses. For a seventh year, full reimbursement for new hires (36%) remains near the lowest levels historically (36%-39%, , 2020), out of favor in comparison to lump-sum payments (56%). Full reimbursement for transferees returns to levels similar to the highs of the past 17 years (69% vs. 64%-74%), dramatically above the lows (55%- 59%) of this same time frame. Partial reimbursement for new hires or transferees continues to be highly used among roughly half of firms for the fifth year in a row. This number was closer to one-third during the previous five years; it remains at levels seen for new hires from (48% vs. 45%-51%) and hits a historical high for transferees (53%) for a fifth year in a row, even above (48%). Lump-sum usage for transferees remains near 2019 s record high (54% vs. 56%) and similar to the previous high in 2017 (55%). Usage of lump-sum payments for new hires nearly matches the highest level recorded in 2018 & 2020 (56% vs. 58%). Of note is the addition of direct or managed cap programs nearly half (47%) say they use them for transferees, and they are only slightly less popular for new hires (41%).

33 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q Relocation Reimbursement by Type/Size Less than ,999 5, % 38% 49% 60% 45% 46% 60% 45% 30% 29% 63% 72% 35% 33% 54% 58% 54% 54% 45% 49% 38% 39% 46% 51% 51% 46% 31% 23% 33% 24% Full Reimbursement Tranferees Full Reimbursement New Hires Lump Sum Payments Transferees Lump Sum Payments New Hires Direct or Managed Cap Programs - Transferees Direct or Managed Cap Programs - New Hires Partial Reimbursement Tranferees Partial Reimbursement New Hires No Reimbursement Tranferees No Reimbursement New Hires 1 in 4 firms surveyed state some relocations (transferee or new hire) receive no reimbursement of expenses. Before the turn of the century, full reimbursement was by far used most frequently to cover costs for both transferees and new hires. As seen in recent years, firms continue to differentiate between current employees and new hires for full reimbursement (69% for transferees vs. 36% for new hires overall). Current employees have a far greater probability of receiving full reimbursement than new hires across company size, but small firms are less likely to offer full reimbursement compared to midsize or large firms (63% vs. 72% & 71%). Use of partial reimbursement remains similar for transferees and new hires overall, but it is more likely to be leveraged for transferees at large firms than small or midsize (60% vs. 46% & 51%). Around half of firms use partial reimbursement for new hires across company size at similar levels. Lumpsum payments continue to be popular and offered with equal frequency to new hires or transferees over the past three years. Direct or managed cap program usage for transferees or new hires is also similar across company size. Q36 Relocation Reimbursement Composition Fully Reimbursed/Cost Covered by Company Partially Reimbursed by Company 7% 24% 28% 6% 21% 32% Lump Sum Payment Only (Entire Relo) Not Reimbursed (Employee Paid) 8% 27% 27% 7% 24% 25% Companies overall estimate that around half of their relocations were either partially reimbursed or paid by lump sum only in Small firms are only slightly more likely to have paid entirely by lump sum compared to larger firms (32% vs. 25%+). Only 4 out of 10 relocations were fully reimbursed across firms of all sizes. Less than 1 out of 10 relocations at firms across size were employee-paid and received no reimbursement. 41% Overall 41% Less than % 500-4,999 44% 5,

34 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY LUMP SUM USE Supplemental Use Remains Higher Q36 Relocation Reimbursement Composition: Fully Reimbursed/Cost Covered by Company Lump Sum Payment Only (Entire Relo) Partially Reimbursed by Company 24% 41% 28% The use of fully reimbursed/cost-covered relocations has declined progressively and remains near its historical low. For the past nine years, firms estimate one in four relocations are lump-sum payment only (for the entire relocation). For the past eight years, roughly one in five were partially reimbursed; for 2020, this trends upward to one in four. Even as companies continue their reliance on lump sums, they are using them not just to replace relocation benefits but as a flexible supplement for specific costs. Our survey continues to investigate which costs fall under lump sum payments, and to whom and for what types of relocations they are applied. Among firms using lump sums, roughly 4 out of 10 apply them for the entire cost of relocation, essentially consistent with findings since measurement began. However, the percentage of companies using lump sums for travel expenses drops from half or more over the past five years to 38%, and those using them for household goods shipping/storage or temporary housing also falls from roughly half to around a third. After progressively increasing across these categories for most of the past decade, these are notable shifts. Those using lump sums for miscellaneous expenses trends lower as well. Of note is that firms using lump sums for rental assistance/transactions and real estate assistance/transactions remain at levels similar to the past six years and do not see declines. 34

35 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q36a Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs: For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees? Miscellaneous Expense Allowances Household Goods Shipping/Storage Travel Expenses 38% 34% 33% Entire Relocation Cost Temporary Housing 37% 38% Real Estate Assistance/Transactions Rental Assistance/Transactions 31% 28%

36 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Roughly a third or more firms use lump sums for each of the expense categories on this list, indicating there is still wide diversity in application of lump sums for relocation management. Usage of lump sums has increased and remains elevated for the following categories: Since 2015, around one-third of firms used lump sums for rental assistance/transactions, compared to 16%- 21% from For the seventh year running, nearly twice as many firms used lump sums for real estate assistance/ transactions (28% vs. 11%-15% for ). After rebounding from a low in 2015 (40%), firms applying lump sums to miscellaneous expense allowances has decreased to its lowest level historically (57% vs. 34%) in In the past, far more differences existed among companies in how lump sums were applied. In recent years, frequencies of lump sum use are mostly similar across company size. Notable differences this year include: midsize and large firms are more likely to use them for temporary housing (43% & 40% vs. 26% of small firms), and midsize firms are much more likely to use them for rental assistance/transactions than large firms (38% vs. 24%). Q36c Lump Sum Ranges For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown: Median Amounts Less than ,999 5,000 or more Grand Total Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions Household Goods Shipping/Storage $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 Entire Relocation Cost $5,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999 Rental Assistance/ Transactions $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 Travel Expenses $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 Temporary Housing $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 Misc. Expense Allowances $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,000-$4,999 $2,500-$4, As lump sum usage has grown, the survey has incorporated questions about monetary ranges for categories of reimbursement. Over the past eight years, most offerings are more frequent and generous than in 2013 and 2014, despite some being lower than The overall median ranges match the highest levels in eight years for every category except rental assistance/transactions, which is one tier lower. However, there remain differences in offerings by company size. Small and midsize firms offered the same median amounts for rental assistance/transactions ($1,000-$2,499); large firms were slightly more generous. Midsize and large firms offered the same median amounts for real estate assistance/transactions ($5,000-$9,999), household goods shipping/storage ($5,000-$9,999), the entire relocation cost ($10,000-$14,999), temporary housing ($2,500-$4,999), and miscellaneous expense allowances ($2,500-$4,999). Small firms were slightly less generous for each category. Median amounts across company size were the same for travel expenses ($2,500-$4,999). While the majority continue to apply lump sums for domestic relocations, more than half of firms across company size now indicate they use them for short-term/temporary assignments. The percentage using them for traditional/permanent domestic relocations has progressively declined over the past four years to the lowest level historically, while those using them for shortterm/temporary assignments has increased to the highest level over the last three years. This is likely tied to the dramatic decrease in the percentage of domestic relocations falling under traditional/permanent status in 2020 compared to the previous five years (59% vs. 69%-75%). Nearly 40% of relocations were categorized as either short-term/temporary or alternative

37 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Q36b Types of Relocations Receiving Lump Sum Payments: % Domestic Relocations Short-term/Temporary Assignments 52% International Long-term Assignments 35% Alternative Assignments 17% Q36b Relocation Types Receiving Lump Sums By Company Size Less than ,999 5, % 65% 53% 51% 54% 52% 28% 43% 32% 16% 15% 27% Domestic Relocations Short-term/Temporary Assignments International Longterm Assignments Alternative Assignment Types (rotational/commuter/etc.) last year, compared to around a fourth the previous five years. Use of lump sums for international long-term assignments remains on par with the roughly one-third that have done so historically. More than a sixth use lump sums for alternative assignments; this is also similar to the past five years overall. Use of lump sums for short-term/temporary assignments is essentially the same for firms across size for a second straight year. Midsize firms are the most likely to use lump sums for international assignments compared to both small and large firms (43% vs. 28% & 32%). 37

38 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Q36b Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Employee Type: Entry-Level Employee Experienced Professionals Executives 52% 45% 44% Transferees New Hires 42% 35% Renters Homeowners 26% 26%

39 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Among firms using lump sums, usage rates across executives and experienced professionals had been increasing progressively. However, this year, use of lump sums for executives falls markedly lower (44% vs. 52%-59%) than the previous six years and dips among experienced professionals to match 2015 (52%), although it remains above 2018 (48%). Q36b Employee Types Receiving Lump Sum By Company Size Less than ,999 5, % 31% 47% 41% 34% 28% 32% 49% 59% 42% 46% 43% 57% 41% 45% 35% 35% 21% 30% 22% 24% Experienced professionals Entry level employees Executives Transferees New hires Homeowners Renters Use among entry-level employees remains in the mid-level range historically. A progressive overall decline remains the trend for new hires, and usage of lump sums ticks up slightly for transferees for a second straight year, returning near historical norms. Usage of lump sums for homeowners falls after being dramatically higher in (26% vs. 36%+) to within historical norms; for renters, it falls to the lowest level historically after spending the past five years in the historical midrange. Midsize firms are the most likely to offer lump sums to experienced professionals compared to both smaller and larger firms (59% vs. 49% and 47%). Midsize firms are the most likely to use them for executives (57%), but small firms are also more likely to use them than large firms (43% vs. 31%). Large firms are the most likely to offer lump sums to renters compared to smaller firms (32% vs. 22%+), and both midsize and large firms are more likely to offer them to homeowners than small firms (30% & 28% vs. 21%). Around one out of three firms across size use lump sums for new hires, and close to half use them for entry-level employees or transferees. 39

40 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY COST COVERAGE Customizing relocation packages continues, with assistance most often provided based on job/grade level or position/job title. OVERALL & SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS/RENTERS Across company size, firms estimate that in 2020 close to half of relocations were mid-level jobs and roughly one-fifth were entry-level, which is similar to the past five years. Firms across size estimate that around one-third of their relocations last year were for executive-level moves, similar to and higher than just over one-fourth in for small and midsize firms, and a notable increase for large firms (36% vs. 28%). While midsize and large firms see more volume than small firms do, their employee-level compositions remain similar, with mid-level moves occurring more than twice as often as entry-level moves. Q27 Relocating Employee Composition: New Hires Transferees 55% 45% Q27 New Hires by Company Size: Less than ,999 5, % 45% 43%

41 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 2020 By Company Size - Employee Level What percentage of your company s relocating employees were classified as: Employee level Overall Less than ,999 5, % 22% 23% 21% 44% 46% 43% 43% 34% 32% 34% 36% Entry-Level Mid-Level Executives/Top Level EMPLOYEE LEVEL IMPACTS OFFERINGS As expected and comparable to the last five years, coverage for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/top-level positions than for entry-level positions. In the recent past, the likelihood of a lump sum or noreimbursement policy was greater for entry-level moves compared to executive, with mid-level moves at the midpoint. This year, one out of four firms indicate this policy could be leveraged across employee levels. However, fewer small firms say lump sums or no reimbursement is their policy for entry-level or mid-level employees (28% & 36% vs. 43%+ 2020), and slightly fewer use them for executives (28% vs. 36%). Midsize firms remain more likely to use lump sums or no reimbursement for entry-level or mid-level moves compared to executive (28% & 26% vs. 18%). While one out of four large firms also have this policy in place for entry-level and mid-level employees, lump sums or no reimbursement are far less likely to be offered to executives (25% & 26% vs. 18%); this is a shift from 2020, when mid-tier employees were less likely to be offered lump sums or no reimbursement (12%). In the past, there were far greater differences when analyzing company size and employee level together. For the past three years, small firms were more likely to use lump sum only or not reimburse costs for entry-level relocations compared to large firms. In 2021, usage across size for entry-level employees is essentially the same (roughly one out of four). This is driven by declining use among small and mid-size firms and similar usage levels among large firms to historical norms. Midsize firms were also more likely to use lump sum only or not reimburse costs for mid-level relocations compared to large firms, but this year usage levels are similar to 2020 for midsize firms (26% vs. 30%) and rose among large firms (26% vs. 12%), making them equal. Small firms remain more likely than midsize or large to use lump sums for mid-level relocations and for executives (36% & 28% vs. 18%), although both are down slightly from 2020 (43% mid-level & 36% executive). The percentages of small firms using this option remain slightly above the previous lows in 2017 for entry-level (28% vs. 21%) and executive (28% vs. 20%) relocations and remain elevated for mid-level (36% vs. 22%) moves. Unsurprisingly, executives see higher levels of coverage for individual categories than do entry-level relocations overall. However, this year mid-level moves trend closely 41

42 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Q32 Cost Coverage (Selected) By Employee Level Entry-Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level 49% 45% 42% 42% 42% 41% 41% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 36% 49% 35% 52% 25% 40% 34% 44% 27% 38% 28% 42% 26% 37% 43% 48% 28% 40% 31% 40% 33% 37% 30% 38% Pack All Items Move an Automobile Move a Second Automobile Move Pets Perm/Extended Storage of Some Possessions Unpack All Items Have Belongings Picked Up from 2nd Residence Cover Required COVID-19 Quarantine Costs at Destination Move Highly Valuable Objects/ Collections Move Exercise Equipment Move Unlimited Weight Move Via Containerized Shipment 42 with executives in coverage for most individual categories and notably above entry-level moves. Roughly half or more of both mid-level and executive moves cover the top two (pack all items and move an automobile), far more than for entry-level relocations (one-third). There are some notable commonalities. 40% or more of firms across employee levels cover required COVID-19 quarantine costs at destination. Additionally, around a third across employee levels say they cover: moving unlimited weight, moving via containerized shipment, sanitization services for residence(s), and carrying items down from the attic. Company size plays a role in coverage. Midsize and large firms are more likely to cover required COVID-19 quarantine costs than small firms (45%+ vs. 35%). Large firms are also more likely to cover packing all items (44% vs. 28%+), moving an automobile (42% vs. 29%+), or containerized shipments (36% vs. 27%) for entry-level relocations than smaller firms. While midsize firms are the most likely to cover residence sanitization services (45%) compared to around a third of both small and large firms, large firms cover some other services listed far more often compared to small firms and see similar levels of coverage across most items to midsize firms. Coverage for mid-level moves trend more generous across most items at midsize and/or large firms; however, those offering unpacking all items, moving collections of highly valuable objects, moving unlimited weight, and moving a boat saw similar levels across company size. Midsize firms are the most likely to cover required COVID-19 quarantine costs compared to small or large firms (58% vs. 40% & 44%), but across most offerings mid-size and large companies see similar coverage frequencies. This indicates that a competitive landscape exists for mid-level positions among these larger firms. Executives saw far more midsize and large companies offering to pack all items, move an automobile, move highly valuable collections, move exercise equipment, or carry items down from the attic compared to small firms. Additionally, midsize firms essentially met or exceeded the percentages of large companies offering nearly every other individual cost coverage item for relocations. So even though far fewer small firms offered most individual cost coverage items comparatively, this indicates a highly competitive environment between midsize and large firms for key executive talent.

43 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS HOMEOWNERS Generally, homeowner assistance for specific items is more likely for executive/top level and mid-level relocations than for entry-level positions. However, the biggest differences occur by company size. 40% of small firms say lump sums or no reimbursement is policy leveraged for entry and mid-level employee relocations (similar to 2020: 46%+), and one out of three say they use this option for executive-level moves (down notably from 42% in 2020). They remain the most likely to flex this option across company size and employee levels. Usage remains similar to 2020 for midsize firms for entry-level (29% vs. 35%) and executive level (19% vs. 22%) relocations, as well as among large firms for entry-level moves (26% vs. 27%); it increases among large firms for mid-level (30% vs. 17%) and executives (21% vs. 10%). Across most categories, homeowner assistance is most often offered for mid-level or executive relocations, rather than entry-level. This difference is most pronounced at midsize and large firms. Even though most assistance categories are offered less often at the entry-level, smaller firms do offer benefits at similar levels to midsize firms across most assistance categories for these lower-level moves. Small firms also offer benefits at similar levels to large firms in more than a third of assistance categories. This data indicates that the competitive landscape is more similar across size for entry-level hires. Q33 Homeowner Assistance (Top 7) By Employee Level Entry-Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level 43% 43% 41% 37% 35% 35% 34% 32% 48% 33% 49% 34% 43% 29% 37% 26% 35% 26% 40% 30% 38% Offer Homefinding Trips Offer Temporary Housing Allowance Offer Storage Offer Home Marketing Assistance Reimburse/ Pay for Federal Tax Liability Reimburse/ Pay for Home Purchase Costs Reimburse/ Pay for Home Sale Costs SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS/RENTERS For a sixth year, we asked what types of assistance are offered across employee levels, regardless of status (transferee or new hire). While most firms continue to offer special types of assistance to homeowners/renters, the cumulative percentages indicating that lump sums or no specialized assistance is offered for at least some employee types have progressively increased over the past five years. Around half of midsize and large firms sometimes offer lump sums or no specialized assistance, while 6 out of 10 small firms sometimes do so, trending progressively higher over the past three years and notably above levels. Assistance Offered: Composite Percentages Homeowner Renter 49% 49%

44 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 33% Q34 Renter Assistance (Top 6) by Employee Level Entry-Level 46% 49% Offer Homefinding Trips RENTERS 33% 45% 43% Offer Storage 34% 43% Mid-Level 49% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance Reimburse/ Pay For Lease Cancellation Reimburse/ Pay Apartment Search or Finder Fees Executive/ Top Level Reimburse/ Pay for Security Deposits This year, the likelihood of renter assistance being offered is similar across employee level. Company size plays less of a role than in the past, although a lump-sum or no-assistance option is most often leveraged for entry-level employees at small firms and less often at large firms. More than a fourth of small firms leverage lump sums or no renter assistance across employee levels (down from 37%+ in 2020). A fifth or more of midsize firms offer lump sum or no-renter assistance across employee levels (similar to last year: 24%+). At large companies, there is a shift: this policy is more likely to be used for mid-level employees vs. entry-level or executives (33% vs. 22% & 18%), increasing notably above 2020 for mid-level (33% vs. 19%) employees while remaining similar for entry-level (22% vs. 26%) and executives (18% vs. 14%). Most renter assistance items are more likely to be offered for mid-level or executive relocations than for entry-level moves overall. Rental subsidies/allowances, furniture rental 27% 42% 35% 42% 32% 41% 25% 35% 38% reimbursement/payment, and home purchase loans are the only categories similar across employee level. Company size is impactful. While midsize and large firms are most likely to offer most rental assistance items for entrylevel renters, offerings are more similar across company size for mid-level employees for most categories, and midsize companies are most likely to offer many types of rental assistance to executives. Similarities emerge for midsize and large firms in rental assistance. They are more likely to offer home-finding trips and reimburse/pay for security deposits for entry-level employees, provide storage to entry- and mid-level relocating renters, and offer temporary housing allowances for entrylevel and executives than small firms. These larger firms are also more likely to reimburse/pay for lease cancellation for mid-level and executive level employees. CAREGIVING ASSISTANCE One out of four relocations involved an employee with children in % of companies estimate the most frequently relocated, salaried employee is years of age. Both older millennials and the youngest members of Generation X find themselves in this range. Many who are raising children and have elderly parents for whom they are shifting into a caretaking role. Many experience this "sandwich" of dual caregiving challenges, and relocation policies have had to adapt. 78% of firms offer childcare assistance for relocating employees increasing again over last year s largest percentage measured for this accommodation. 72% offer accommodations for elder care also increasing for another year to the highest percentage ever seen. Assistance types vary such as using pre-tax dollars for outside care, flexible scheduling or telecommuting, as well as providing lists of service providers/options or of local schools/organizations. Overall, it appears the majority of firms are trying to ensure that employees who relocate get the support they need to transition successfully while managing family obligations. Q40 Caregiving Assistance Offered: Elder Care Childcare 78% 72%

45 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS OUTSOURCING Q43 & 47j Outsourcing: Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that Outsourced - International Outsourced - Overall 89% 82% More than 80% of companies outsourced relocation services last year. This number surpasses the historical high of 2016 & 2020 (82% vs. 77%) and all other highs in 2011, & 2018 (72%-76%). Outsourcing continues for the overwhelming majority of large firms (near highest levels historically) and in the high range for midsize firms. Usage among small firms reaches a new historical high (72%), notably above & (59%- 65%) and 2017 (49%). It is now roughly double the previous 12-year average of around one-third. Large firms continue to outsource to a greater extent and offer more services than midsize or small firms. Even with more firms continuing to outsource overall in 2020, the use of most individual service categories is similar to and remains slightly lower compared to However, worth noting is that outsourcing full relocation program management has increased over the past three years (28% vs. 22%+) and is just over 2016 levels (26%). Four categories see declines by roughly half compared to both last year and 2016: real estate sales/ marketing (16% vs. 33%+), real estate purchase (18% vs. 31%+), tax gross-up assistance (10% vs. 21%+), and expense management/ tracking/reimbursement services (13% vs. 21%+). Overall, most service categories remain down from historical highs and at or near historic lows. The management of service provider GDPR/ data privacy compliance is newer: 1 out of 10 firms outsources this function. Companies remain extremely strategic, using external expertise only where it is most cost effective, as evidenced by high overall outsourcing but not across service categories. INTERNATIONAL Similar to the previous seven years, more firms relocating employees internationally outsourced in 2020 than did overall (89% vs. 82%). International outsourcing remains at or close to historic highs overall and across company size, but with great variation across service categories. However, large firms continue to outsource a greater variety of services than midsize and small firms do. In 2020, international outsourcing across most service categories declines from the higher levels seen in and falls below the lower levels of Outsourcing levels fall to or near the lowest levels historically for most categories. There are two exceptions: Counseling about company policy concerning international relocation remains similar to 2016 & 2019 (31% vs. 34%+), above (24%+), and in the midrange historically. Outsourcing the property management of the origin home nearly matches the historical high (28% vs. 29%: 2013), is markedly above (17%+), and is similar to higher historical norms overall. Outsourcing categories that stay at or near 2017 levels are: counseling about the planning and details of relocating internationally (29% vs. 29%), international shipment coordination and monitoring (24% vs. 29%), destination services/orientation tours (27% vs. 30%), and international real estate services (18% vs. 14%). Since international relocation volumes took the greatest hit due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the decline in the outsourcing levels of many international relocation services is not wholly unexpected. Among companies that outsourced relocation services domestically in 2020, those that also outsourced internationally (98%) matches 2014 s historical high. For the seventh straight year, firms that outsource domestic services and relocate internationally almost universally outsource services abroad. Large firms continue to be the most active for outsourcing internationally: around onefifth or more did so across almost all survey categories. 45

46 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Q47c Typical International Relocation Assignment Duration: Months or Less >12 Months, <3 Years 3 Years or More 51% 34% 15% DURATION This year, typical assignment lengths of 12 months or less increase to a historic high (51%). This is the first time shorter international assignments overtake other lengths as the most common. A progressive increase of those using shorter assignments occurred from when it was roughly three times as likely to be the typical assignment length than in Until 2015, the majority of firms overall reported that international assignments were typically 1-3 years in duration. The percentage of those saying 1-3 years is the typical assignment length falls to the lowest level historically (34%), trending higher in 2020 (52%). It dropped from 59% in 2014 to 44% in 2015 and remained under 50% between , notably below the higher levels of (54%-61%). Longer engagements of three years or more are far less utilized (15%) and remain near the lowest levels historically. Firms across size see far more usage of short international assignments (67% small, 51% mid-size, 42% large) compared to 2020 (42% small, 35% midsize, and 30% large), when usage was more similar regardless of size. However, even with the increases across size, small and midsize firms are more likely to use these shorter assignments, similar to Use of short assignments at small firms reaches the highest level historically (67%), more than twice as likely to be offered than those 1-3 years (27%) and markedly higher than (40%-53%). At large firms, short assignments as a "typical" assignment length reach a historic high (42%), far more than the previous high (30%: 2020 & 2015), 3-4 times higher than previous historical norms. Usage of short assignments at midsize firms also reaches a historic high (51%) after trending 34%-45% between Use of shorter assignment types by midsize and small firms is now roughly triple or more that of 7-8 years ago. Assignment lengths of 1-3 years fall 16%+ compared to 2020 for both large (40% vs. 56%) and midsize (32% vs. 54%) firms, dipping only slightly less among small firms (27% vs. 38%). Overall, firms estimated that around one out of three assignments were 1-3 years, more than one out of four were short-term, and roughly one out of four were longer in Around two out of eight belonged to another type of assignment (commuter, rotational, etc.). More than half of firms expect their use of short-term/ temporary assignments to increase during 2021 across company size. Almost two out of three large firms expect increases. However, while few midsize or large firms anticipate decreasing usage of shorter assignments, one-fifth of small firms anticipate doing less. Only around a third expect stability in frequency for this type of international assignment. DESTINATION Despite stricter immigration, pandemic border closures, and a challenging political climate, the United States was a top international destination again in The most-frequented destinations for relocations between the U.S. and other countries/regions were Canada (44%), United States (43%), Europe (U.K. & mainland Europe) (36%), and Asia/Australia/ Pacific Rim locales (24%). The United States was first in intraregional transfers of expatriates. Both immigration to the U.S. and movement of foreign nationals within the U.S. remain markedly higher for a seventh year (31%+ vs. 18% in 2013). Canada ranked second for intraregional transfers (28%), followed closely by Europe (U.K. & mainland) (24%) and Asia/ Australia/Pacific Rim destinations (22%). The United States was 46

47 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS the top destination for interregional transfers (41%), followed by the Asia/Australia/Pacific Rim region (33%), Europe (U.K. & mainland) (32%), and Canada (31%). Previously, among all types of international relocations, European destinations combined (U.K., Eastern & Western Europe) eclipsed most other regions, with roughly half of firms saying this geographic block was the most frequent destination whether outbound from the U.S. or inbound from another country. This declined markedly in 2020: only around a third cited European destinations for those leaving the U.S. (36%) and going to another country (32%). Comparatively, it appears that if international relocations were undertaken, companies said North American (U.S. or Canada) international origins and destinations were most common (61% & 71%). The North America region also saw a higher percentage reporting intraregional activity last year among those doing international relocations (66% vs. 53% ). Since international relocations saw the greatest declines in volume last year, it is likely these percentages reflect that more international relocations were performed much closer to corporate "home" than expansively overseas. Around a fourth of firms overall cite Asia/Australia/ Pacific Rim destinations for outbound moves from the U.S. or within another foreign country/region, and 33% report moves within the Asia/Australia/Pacific Rim area happened interregionally. Q10b 2020 Most Frequent Destinations What were the most frequent destinations for transferees? United States Canada Europe (U.K. & Mainland) Asia/Australia/Pacific Rim 43% 44% 36% 24% 49% 28% 24% 22% 41% 31% 32% 33% Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region Within Single Foreign Country/Region Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions POLICY Most firms, regardless of size, average two or more tiers within each international-policy type (overall, permanent transfer, localization and intraregional). For tiers in the overall policy, the top two criteria are job/grade level (48%) and assignment length (43%). While the weight of job/grade level is similar to domestic policy (45%), assignment length is far more impactful internationally (43% vs. 30%), and position/job title is less important (30% vs. 42%). Homeowner/renter status ties with job/grade level for first place at small firms (41%), with assignment length and position/job title a close second (38%). Job/grade level (49%) and assignment length (47%) are nearly equal in weight at mid-size firms and very closely weighted at large firms (51% & 44%). Position/job title carries far more weight internationally at small or midsize firms than large companies (38% & 35% vs. 23%). Homeowner/renter status plays a larger role at small firms internationally (41%) compared to midsize and large firms (26% & 28%). For the seventh year in a row, the vast majority of firms (and the highest percentages historically) report differences between domestic and international policies. Generally, the percentages of firms offering specific policy allowances fall below last year s levels, with many individual offerings remaining at or near historical lows. We note these exceptions: Extended per-diem charges increase slightly and are in the midrange (24% vs. 11%-28%) of the last 18 years. More firms are requiring stronger data privacy protocols/ protection rules for service providers (27%) than last year (16%) or in 2019 (20%). Additional leave time trends similar to the last six years (26% vs. 28%-35%) and above historical lows (16%-18%). Although small, firms providing allowances for elder care is roughly twice that of 2018 (13% vs. 6%) and has progressively increased over the past four years. For the first time, we asked about the impact of COVID-19 on international policy and learned the following: Roughly one out of five firms say they cover costs of required COVID-19 quarantine in the host country; midsize and large firms are more likely to do so than small (22% & 20% vs. 11%). One out of six firms specifically allow the remote buying/ selling/renting of housing. 15% say they are considering requiring COVID-19 vaccination of relocating employees and accompanying family. 47

48 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY SURVEY RESPONSES BY SECTION 49 A: RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS 53 B: FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS 58 C: POLICY ADMINISTRATION 65 D: RELOCATION COSTS 69 E: EMPLOYEE, SPOUSE & ASSISTANCE ISSUES 71 F: SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT 73 G: INTERNATIONAL 77 H: CORPORATE/RESPONDENT PROFILE SURVEY Responses The following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group s 54th Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted from January 14 through March 1, 2021, via the internet. This year, 420 online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers to domestic relocations occurring in Multiple-choice questions add to 100% (+/ 1% due to rounding), unless otherwise noted. Other questions totaling 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 atlasvanlines.com/corporate-relocation/survey. 48

49 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS 1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2020? 4% None 8% 2% 2% 16% % 14% 3% 11% % 11% 6% 16% % 21% 9% 13% % 17% 9% 18% % 18% 26% 11% % 12% 20% 10% 400 or more 0% 4% 26% *excludes those who don t know Median Do you ever relocate employees between countries? 54% % of companies answering "Yes" 44% 52% 65% 3. Is your company... 26% Regional 39% 21% 18% 39% National 42% 46% 28% 35% International 19% 33% 54% 4a. Compared to 2019, did the number of employees you relocated in % Increase Significantly 9% 13% 20% 22% Increase Somewhat 18% 31% 17% 32% Stay About the Same 44% 23% 31% 22% Decrease Somewhat 22% 23% 21% 10% Decrease Significantly 8% 11% 11% 4b. Compared to 2019, did your 2020 relocation budget 16% Increase Significantly 11% 12% 26% 29% Increase Somewhat 22% 36% 28% 31% Stay About the Same 41% 29% 24% 14% Decrease Somewhat 17% 12% 13% 9% Decrease Significantly 9% 10% 9% 5a. Compared to 2020, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2021 will 17% Increase Significantly 11% 16% 23% 34% Increase Somewhat 30% 35% 37% 35% Stay About the Same 44% 29% 33% 11% Decrease Somewhat 13% 13% 7% 3% Decrease Significantly 2% 6% 1% 49

50 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 5b. Compared to 2020, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2021 will 16% Increase Significantly 9% 13% 27% 34% Increase Somewhat 32% 35% 35% 37% Stay About the Same 47% 37% 28% 9% Decrease Somewhat 8% 10% 9% 3% Decrease Significantly 4% 5% 1% 6. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2020?* 62% % of companies answering "Yes" 52% 64% 71% *excludes those who don t know 7. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee s career? 42% % of companies answering "Yes" 45% 40% 41% 8a. Did your company offer additional nonstandard incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year? 91% % of companies indicating "Yes" 92% 95% 87% 8b. Which of the following additional nonstandard incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of those who offered incentives or exceptions: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 8a) 44% Relocation/sign-on bonuses 41% 52% 39% 38% Extended temporary housing benefits 37% 40% 37% 34% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) 34% 43% 25% in salary at new location 33% Guarantee of employment contract (for 33% 32% 35% specified length of time) if relocation accepted 31% Telecommuting option (one or two days 28% 36% 27% each week) to curtail commuting costs 18% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 18% 18% 18% won't cover employee mortgage debt) 18% Extended duplicate housing benefits 12% 22% 19% 17% Guaranteed buyout option for origin home 16% 14% 21% 16% Loss-on-sale protection 8% 15% 25% 16% Buyer value option for origin home 10% 19% 20% 1% Other 2% 0% 2% 8c. How often did offering the above incentives or exceptions prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?* Of those who offered incentives or exceptions: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 8a) 24% Almost always 23% 23% 25% 62% Frequently 61% 66% 57% 14% Seldom 14% 11% 16% 1% Never 2% 0% 2% *excludes not applicable/don t know responses 50

51 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 9. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2020 * 31% Increase from the 2019 level 31% 34% 29% 44% Remain about the same as the 2019 level 46% 36% 51% 25% Decrease from the 2019 level 24% 30% 20% *excludes those who don t know 9a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who answered "Yes" to Question 6: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried 52% Health concerns/illness/covid-19 pandemic 52% 54% 51% 41% Family issues/ties 41% 48% 35% 32% Spouse's/partner's employment 31% 44% 21% 30% Cost of living in new location 30% 33% 27% 25% Destination location 30% 21% 26% 25% Personal reasons (nondisclosed) 19% 26% 29% 23% No desire to relocate 20% 26% 23% 18% Job security concerns 11% 24% 18% 17% Housing/mortgage concerns 13% 20% 17% 1% Other 0% 0% 2% 10a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2020 in each of the following:* Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 2% None 1% 4% 0% 20% % 18% 4% 18% % 13% 13% 19% % 21% 16% 15% % 18% 18% 13% % 16% 16% 7% % 7% 11% 9% % 4% 22% Between the U.S. and Canada Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 48% None 58% 54% 32% 14% % 14% 11% 10% % 11% 11% 9% % 9% 11% 10% % 8% 13% 4% % 3% 9% 2% % 1% 5% 3% % 1% 8% Between the U.S. and another country Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 52% None 61% 55% 42% 14% % 16% 10% 8% % 10% 6% 10% % 10% 11% 8% % 6% 13% 3% % 1% 7% 2% % 1% 5% 3% % 1% 6% *excludes those who don t know 51

52 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 10a results continued) Within a single foreign country Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 63% None 69% 71% 48% 10% % 12% 5% 8% % 6% 10% 7% % 3% 13% 5% % 4% 9% 4% % 2% 8% 1% % 0% 4% 2% % 2% 2% Between two foreign countries Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 63% None 70% 71% 47% 11% 1-9 9% 16% 8% 8% % 5% 12% 5% % 3% 6% 5% % 1% 10% 5% % 1% 12% 2% % 1% 4% 1% % 1% 2% *excludes those who don t know 10b. What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer * Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 35% South 29% 37% 38% 31% Northeast 27% 33% 33% 28% Midwest 25% 26% 33% 27% Central 23% 26% 30% 19% West 10% 25% 22% 19% Southwest 18% 23% 16% Between the U.S. and another country/region Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 44% Canada 39% 49% 43% 43% United States 44% 26% 55% 19% Europe (Western) 11% 31% 14% 18% Asia 18% 16% 19% 16% United Kingdom 12% 19% 15% 13% Europe (Eastern) 5% 18% 13% 11% Central America/Caribbean 2% 14% 14% 10% South America 11% 15% 5% 8% Australia/Pacific Rim 5% 8% 9% 7% Middle East 7% 7% 8% 4% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 2% 5% 4% 4% Russia 4% 1% 6% 3% Africa (North) 2% 4% 4% 1% Other 0% 1% 2% Within a single foreign country/region Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 49% United States 56% 21% 61% 28% Canada 21% 29% 32% 17% Asia 15% 14% 20% 16% Europe (Western) 8% 17% 20% 12% South America 10% 10% 14% 11% Central America/Caribbean 0% 14% 15% 52

53 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 10% Middle East 5% 7% 14% 10% United Kingdom 5% 14% 10% 8% Australia/Pacific Rim 10% 10% 6% 8% Europe (Eastern) 5% 12% 7% 6% Russia 10% 7% 3% 4% Africa (North) 0% 5% 6% 4% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 3% 5% 4% 1% Other 0% 0% 1% Between two foreign countries/regions Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 41% United States 55% 19% 46% 31% Canada 29% 33% 30% 24% Asia 13% 26% 29% 15% Europe (Western) 8% 21% 14% 13% Australia/Pacific Rim 11% 21% 10% 13% Europe (Eastern) 3% 17% 16% 12% Central America/Caribbean 5% 12% 16% 11% South America 8% 7% 16% 11% United Kingdom 5% 14% 13% 9% Middle East 3% 10% 12% 5% Russia 5% 5% 6% 3% Africa (North) 3% 2% 4% 3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 3% 0% 4% 1% Other 0% 0% 1% *excludes N/A responses B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS 11. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2020? 3% External conditions had no impact 4% 5% 1% 62% COVID-19 pandemic 53% 69% 62% 37% Economic conditions 41% 42% 28% 24% Lack of qualified people locally 29% 25% 18% 16% Real estate market 18% 18% 13% 14% Growth of domestic competition 10% 14% 18% 14% Growth of international competition 13% 8% 21% 16% Political/regulatory environment domestic or 16% 7% 27% international (e.g., visa/immigration restrictions, travel bans/closed borders, etc.) 16% Tax legislation/tax compliance challenges 13% 15% 19% 12% Natural/man-made disasters domestic or 11% 8% 17% international (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, war/civil unrest, etc.) 0% Other 0% 1% 0% 12. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2020? 4% Internal conditions had no impact 4% 4% 4% 20% Expansion of virtual/remote work 20% 19% 23% 20% Budget constraints 23% 18% 20% 20% Growth of company 24% 21% 13% 19% Knowledge/skills transfers 22% 19% 16% 18% Staff reductions/furloughs/layoffs 17% 18% 19% 17% Promotions/resignations 17% 14% 21% 15% Increased production 12% 20% 13% 15% Employee ineligibility/inability to relocate 11% 17% 17% 15% Expansion into new territories 9% 18% 16% 53

54 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 12 results continued) 14% Expansion of facility 11% 14% 16% 14% Acquisitions/mergers 10% 16% 15% 14% Technology deployment/integration 13% 18% 10% 13% Use of short-term assignments 13% 8% 18% 13% Delayed onboarding/hiring 16% 10% 13% 13% Closing of facility 10% 10% 18% 13% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 8% 16% 13% 10% International expansion 10% 10% 11% 8% Use of frequent business travel/telecommuting 4% 8% 13% 2% Other 0% 2% 4% 13. Compared to 2019, from your company s perspective, please rate the following in 2020:* Your company s overall financial performance 33% Better than % 34% 36% 36% Same as in % 29% 38% 31% Worse than % 37% 27% The U.S. real estate market 32% Better than % 27% 38% 32% Same as in % 32% 30% 36% Worse than % 41% 32% Emerging global market economies 22% Better than % 15% 37% 41% Same as in % 36% 44% 36% Worse than % 49% 19% Developed global market economies 23% Better than % 20% 28% 42% Same as in % 36% 48% 35% Worse than % 44% 24% The U.S. economy 24% Better than % 20% 29% 29% Same as in % 25% 35% 48% Worse than % 55% 37% U.S./Canada/Mexico trade bloc economic performance 22% Better than % 20% 28% 39% Same as in % 36% 41% 39% Worse than % 44% 31% United Kingdom economy Of those who answered Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: 25% Better than % 25% 35% 41% Same as in % 32% 40% 34% Worse than % 42% 24% 54

55 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES European Union trade bloc economic performance Of those who answered Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: 24% Better than % 19% 34% 39% Same as in % 37% 41% 37% Worse than % 44% 25% *excludes those who don t know/not applicable responses 14. Compared to 2020, please indicate what you anticipate for 2021:* Your company s overall financial performance 56% Better than % 67% 50% 35% Same as in % 26% 44% 9% Worse than % 7% 6% The U.S. real estate market 50% Better than % 55% 49% 35% Same as in % 35% 37% 15% Worse than % 10% 14% Emerging global market economies 43% Better than % 55% 38% 44% Same as in % 36% 46% 13% Worse than % 8% 16% Developed global market economies 48% Better than % 55% 51% 38% Same as in % 35% 35% 13% Worse than % 10% 14% The U.S. economy 52% Better than % 60% 49% 34% Same as in % 29% 34% 15% Worse than % 11% 17% U.S./Canada/Mexico trade bloc economic performance 43% Better than % 50% 41% 43% Same as in % 39% 44% 15% Worse than % 10% 15% United Kingdom economy Of those who answered Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: 47% Better than % 62% 44% 40% Same as in % 33% 40% 12% Worse than % 5% 16% European Union trade bloc economic performance Of those who answered Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: 42% Better than % 51% 42% 43% Same as in % 34% 44% 15% Worse than % 15% 14% *excludes those who don t know/not applicable responses 55

56 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 15a. What impacts do you feel the COVID-19 pandemic had on relocation/workforce mobility in 2020? Number of relocations performed 12% Increased Significantly 5% 15% 16% 25% Increased Somewhat 24% 29% 22% 26% Stayed About the Same 34% 20% 25% 19% Decreased Somewhat 21% 21% 15% 17% Decreased Significantly 15% 15% 22% Complexity of relocation administration 21% Increased Significantly 20% 20% 24% 36% Increased Somewhat 28% 42% 37% 26% Stayed About the Same 31% 23% 23% 12% Decreased Somewhat 14% 10% 11% 5% Decreased Significantly 7% 5% 4% Relocation costs 14% Increased Significantly 10% 15% 17% 36% Increased Somewhat 38% 39% 30% 31% Stayed About the Same 35% 26% 34% 11% Decreased Somewhat 12% 10% 12% 8% Decreased Significantly 5% 10% 8% Relocation policy changes 18% Increased Significantly 9% 21% 23% 29% Increased Somewhat 32% 27% 29% 40% Stayed About the Same 46% 39% 37% 8% Decreased Somewhat 9% 9% 6% 4% Decreased Significantly 4% 5% 4% Difficulty recruiting employees to relocate 20% Increased Significantly 17% 24% 19% 37% Increased Somewhat 35% 36% 38% 29% Stayed About the Same 33% 25% 29% 11% Decreased Somewhat 12% 11% 10% 4% Decreased Significantly 3% 4% 4% 15b. What types of impacts do you feel COVID-19 will have on relocation in 2021 compared to last year? Number of relocations performed 14% Increase Significantly 10% 16% 17% 33% Increase Somewhat 33% 33% 34% 35% Stay About the Same 33% 35% 38% 12% Decrease Somewhat 16% 12% 8% 5% Decrease Significantly 8% 4% 4% 56

57 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES Complexity of relocation administration 14% Increase Significantly 12% 13% 19% 27% Increase Somewhat 25% 27% 28% 41% Stay About the Same 41% 44% 38% 14% Decrease Somewhat 19% 14% 11% 3% Decrease Significantly 4% 2% 4% Relocation costs 13% Increase Significantly 13% 10% 17% 37% Increase Somewhat 34% 37% 39% 38% Stay About the Same 39% 38% 36% 10% Decrease Somewhat 11% 14% 7% 2% Decrease Significantly 2% 1% 2% Relocation policy changes 14% Increase Significantly 9% 10% 24% 30% Increase Somewhat 34% 35% 21% 44% Stay About the Same 43% 44% 45% 9% Decrease Somewhat 12% 10% 6% 2% Decrease Significantly 3% 1% 4% Difficulty recruiting employees to relocate 14% Increase Significantly 8% 15% 19% 28% Increase Somewhat 34% 22% 29% 37% Stay About the Same 37% 41% 34% 19% Decrease Somewhat 19% 21% 15% 2% Decrease Significantly 3% 1% 3% 16. What changes to internship programs due to the COVID-19 pandemic Were experienced in % Reduced internship program 33% 46% 45% 31% Offered hybrid (on-site/remote) 29% 25% 40% internship program 25% Offered virtual-only internship program 23% 29% 22% 24% Canceled internship program 27% 20% 26% 1% Other 0% 1% 2% 9% Do not have internship program 14% 10% 5% 9% No impact to program in 2020 due 9% 10% 8% to COVID-19 Are anticipated in % Offer hybrid (on-site/remote) 38% 36% 44% internship program 35% Reduction of internship program 29% 33% 43% 24% Offer virtual-only internship program 17% 29% 26% 11% Cancellation of internship program 17% 8% 9% 1% Other 0% 0% 4% 9% Do not have internship program 11% 8% 7% 15% No changes planned in 2021 due to COVID-19 15% 18% 10% 57

58 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION 17. As your company navigates the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares for what work looks like after the pandemic ends, what plans are forming for workforce management in 2021 and beyond?* 42% Required COVID-19 vaccination prior 44% 47% 35% to return to office/location-based work 37% Phased-in/staggered return to 32% 38% 40% work (office/location-based) 32% Hybrid (in office/remote) arrangements 26% 34% 35% for employees 29% Allow employees option to choose to 25% 32% 29% work remotely or return to office/location-based work 27% Full return-to-work plan 33% 26% 23% (office/location-based) 27% Allow specific areas of company to remain 23% 29% 29% remote; others must return to office/location-based work 19% Majority will be remote workforce 15% 25% 16% (limited office/location-based staff) 3% Fully remote workforce (100%) 3% 2% 5% 1% Other 0% 1% 3% *excludes N/A responses 18. What percentage of your workforce do you anticipate will fall in the following categories post-pandemic? 31% Fully remote/work from home 28% 31% 34% 29% Hybrid arrangement (in office & remote/work 26% 31% 31% from home) 37% Office location/on-site 44% 35% 34% 3% Other 2% 4% 2% 19. What constraints will be in place for employees who are fully remote/working from home? 40% Work during certain hours/time 38% 48% 35% zone availability 36% Office setup rules (level of internet 34% 39% 35% connectivity/quiet/dedicated phone line, etc.) 29% Salary adjustment/reduction 31% 30% 26% (if lower cost of living) 29% Live in a specific geographic area 27% 26% 34% 23% Located within a certain radius of 24% 21% 25% a specific office location 18% Live in a specific time zone 16% 20% 17% 14% Near mass transit (train/airport) 11% 12% 19% for potential travel 2% Other 1% 2% 4% 9% No constraints 9% 9% 8% 58

59 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 20. What changes to relocation policy/programs due to the COVID-19 pandemic... Were made in % Financial assistance for COVID-related 32% 46% 38% expenses 31% Increased flexibility for relocation timelines 24% 33% 35% 27% Offered virtual/remote work assignments 26% 27% 28% 24% Delayed/postponed relocations 19% 25% 28% 23% Expanded use of lump sums 15% 19% 33% 21% Extensions/allowances for temporary housing 18% 19% 26% 19% Offered extended business travel (EBT) 20% 21% 17% or short-term assignments 19% Canceled relocations 17% 24% 15% 18% Expansion of core/flex policy 18% 18% 18% 14% Prioritized essential relocations 9% 16% 16% while limiting others 12% Streamlined relocation processes 10% 14% 12% to reduce costs 10% Increased ability to grant policy exceptions 7% 11% 12% 9% Allowed employee use of relocation provider 6% 10% 10% network for remote work/personal moves (no cost coverage) 7% Updated pandemic relocation policy language 7% 10% 4% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 11% No changes to policy made in % 11% 8% due to COVID-19 Are anticipated in % Financial assistance for COVID-related 23% 34% 34% expenses 26% Increased flexibility for relocation timelines 17% 29% 30% 24% Offering virtual/remote work assignments 23% 26% 22% 20% Offering extended business travel (EBT) 12% 22% 24% or short-term assignments 20% Delayed/postponed relocations 14% 18% 26% 19% Expanded use of lump sums 17% 18% 23% 18% Extensions/allowances for temporary housing 18% 14% 21% 16% Expansion of core/flex policy 21% 12% 17% 15% Canceled relocations 14% 14% 15% 13% Increased ability to grant policy exceptions 9% 16% 13% 12% Allowing employee use of relocation provider 11% 13% 12% network for remote work/personal moves (no cost coverage) 11% Requiring COVID-19 vaccination prior 11% 13% 9% to relocation 11% Streamlined relocation processes 9% 14% 9% to reduce costs 10% Prioritizing essential relocations 8% 14% 9% while limiting others 10% Updating pandemic relocation policy language 8% 14% 7% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 13% No changes to policy planned in % 14% 10% due to COVID-19 59

60 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 21. Does your company have a formal global mobility strategy?* 25% Yes, basic policies and procedures 22% 23% 31% 32% Yes, policies and procedures and 28% 33% 33% supporting technology 16% Yes, policies and procedures and risk mitigation 21% 13% 16% 13% Yes, policies and procedures, supporting 10% 13% 15% technology, and risk mitigation 8% No, we do not have a formal global mobility 10% 10% 2% strategy and have no plans to create one 6% No, but we plan to develop a formal global 8% 8% 2% mobility strategy in the next year *excludes N/A responses 22. Does your company have a formal policy for the following types of relocations? 76% Domestic Relocations 68% 81% 79% 60% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 48% 70% 62% (less than 12 months) 48% Long-Distance Commuter 39% 52% 52% 47% Extended Business Travel 28% 56% 55% % of companies answering "Yes" 60 22a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within the following relocation policies? Domestic Of those with policy: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 22) 32% No tiers or levels/single policy 42% 38% 16% 40% Two tiers 40% 40% 39% 17% Three tiers 13% 16% 21% 7% Four tiers 6% 2% 14% 5% Five tiers or more 0% 3% 10% 2.1 Average Number of Domestic Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) Short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) Of those with policy: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 22) 41% No tiers or levels/single policy 41% 40% 42% 34% Two tiers 36% 39% 28% 18% Three tiers 18% 15% 21% 6% Four tiers 5% 5% 7% 1% Five tiers or more 0% 1% 2% 1.9 Average Number of Short-Term/ Temporary Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) Long-distance commuter Of those with policy: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 22) 34% No tiers or levels/single policy 42% 40% 23% 27% Two tiers 28% 28% 26% 24% Three tiers 22% 22% 29% 13% Four tiers 6% 7% 23% 2% Five tiers or more 2% 3% 0% 2.2 Average Number of Long-Distance Commuter Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

61 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES Extended business travel Of those with policy: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 22) 34% No tiers or levels/single policy 39% 37% 28% 29% Two tiers 28% 32% 27% 19% Three tiers 19% 19% 18% 11% Four tiers 14% 6% 15% 6% Five tiers or more 0% 5% 11% 2.3 Average Number of Extended Business Travel Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 22b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with Domestic tiers/levels: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 22a) 45% Job or Grade Level (e.g., staff, management, 44% 48% 44% professional, etc.) 42% Position/Job Title 43% 50% 34% 30% Length of Assignment 26% 35% 29% 28% Assignment Location/Region 16% 35% 30% 28% Assignment Objectives 24% 32% 26% (e.g., developmental, etc.) 27% New Hire/Current Employee Status 31% 22% 31% 26% Homeowner/Renter Status 31% 17% 32% 26% Company- vs. Employee-Initiated Relocation 21% 26% 28% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 23a. Does your relocation policy incorporate any aspects of a core/flex, fixed benefits/ flexible benefits, list-driven policy (e.g., "structured flexibility")? 96% % of companies indicating "Yes" 96% 97% 94% 23b. Does your relocation policy incorporate any of the following aspects of a core/flex, fixed benefits/flexible benefits, list driven policy (e.g., "structured flexibility")? Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (e.g., fixed components/core coverage) 54% Available to All Relocating Employees 50% 57% 56% 38% Employee-Level Dependent 39% 37% 38% 20% Policy Dependent 20% 17% 24% 7% Not Offered 9% 4% 9% Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount applicable to list of possible services 39% Available to All Relocating Employees 35% 42% 38% 43% Employee-Level Dependent 42% 39% 49% 25% Policy Dependent 30% 21% 24% 12% Not Offered 13% 9% 14% Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage applicable to list of possible services 38% Available to All Relocating Employees 38% 41% 35% 40% Employee-Level Dependent 41% 43% 36% 29% Policy Dependent 29% 25% 34% 13% Not Offered 16% 8% 16% 61

62 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 23b results continued) Other type of structured flexibility 9% Available to All Relocating Employees 8% 11% 9% 12% Employee-Level Dependent 10% 10% 16% 8% Policy Dependent 8% 8% 8% 74% Not Offered 77% 73% 72% 23c. What type(s) of relocation components are considered fixed benefits within your relocation policy? 41% Travel expenses home-finding trip(s) 40% 38% 45% 41% Travel expenses final move 40% 44% 39% 39% Temporary housing 36% 47% 34% 38% Household goods shipping 29% 41% 43% 33% Storage 28% 30% 40% 32% Real estate assistance/transaction 30% 31% 36% costs destination/purchasing 32% Miscellaneous expense allowances 27% 27% 42% 31% Rental assistance/transaction costs 31% 31% 31% 26% Real estate assistance/transaction 20% 32% 26% costs origin/selling 1% Other 1% 0% 1% 5% None of the above are considered fixed benefits 7% 5% 4% 24a. Does your company have a centralized relocation/mobility department/team? 93% % of companies indicating Yes 88% 92% 97% 24b. Does your company s centralized relocation/mobility department/team...* Of those with a centralized relocation/mobility Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 24a) 54% Manage domestic relocation programs 48% 56% 59% 43% Develop/maintain relocation policy 33% 47% 46% 28% Manage international relocation programs 19% 25% 37% 27% Coordinate office relocations 22% 32% 27% 23% Control additional relocation services 16% 24% 27% provider(s) selection 23% Impact talent management/recruitment 21% 23% 24% decisions/processes 22% Develop/maintain mobility risk management 16% 24% 25% and mitigation 21% Control household goods carrier selection 18% 18% 27% 20% Manage business travel programs 15% 24% 21% 20% Coordinate air travel via commercial airlines 19% 19% 22% 20% Coordinate visa applications/immigration policy 12% 21% 24% 19% Control freight carrier selection 17% 19% 19% (air, land, sea, or rail) 15% Audit GDPR/data privacy compliance 15% 10% 19% of relocation provider(s) *excludes those who don t know 25a. Did your company use any of the following cost-containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year? 31% Limit miscellaneous expense allowance 24% 32% 36% benefits (coverage items, amounts) 29% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 20% 32% 35% 62

63 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 29% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for certain 22% 29% 35% benefits (e.g., add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement flexible policy, etc.) 24% Cap relocation benefit amounts 29% 27% 17% 24% Offer short-term/extended travel/commuter 23% 25% 25% arrangements rather than relocate employees 20% Use lump-sum payments for relocations 17% 22% 21% 19% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 14% 21% 21% 17% Reduce internal relocation/mobility team size 18% 18% 16% 15% Offer pre-decision counseling 10% 17% 18% 15% Secure dedicated household goods carriers/ 14% 19% 12% transportation rates to streamline lump-sum relocations 9% Modify COLA-offering policy 9% 10% 9% 6% Outsource relocation management 7% 1% 11% program to vendor 0% Other 0% 0% 0 13% No cost-containment measures beyond 15% 14% 10% typical relocation policy or program 25b. Is your company planning to use any of the following cost-containment measures in relocation policy/practice in 2021? 26% Limit miscellaneous expense allowance 17% 29% 33% benefits (coverage items, amounts) 25% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 24% 27% 25% 25% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for certain 24% 25% 26% benefits (e.g., add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement flexible policy, etc.) 22% Cap relocation benefit amounts 26% 29% 11% 21% Offer short-term/extended travel/commuter 20% 21% 22% arrangements rather than relocate employees 18% Use lump-sum payments for relocations 16% 17% 20% 16% Offer pre-decision counseling 13% 18% 17% 16% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 10% 16% 23% 16% Secure dedicated household goods carriers/ 17% 16% 15% transportation rates to streamline lump-sum relocations 15% Reduce internal relocation/mobility team size 14% 18% 15% 10% Modify COLA-offering policy 11% 12% 9% 8% Outsource relocation management program 8% 5% 12% to vendor 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 14% No cost-containment measures beyond typical 15% 14% 13% relocation policy or program 26. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company? 100% 32% 35% 34% 27. In 2020, what approximate percentage of your company's relocating employees were classified (at origin): 55% Transferees 52% 57% 55% 45% New Hires 48% 43% 45% 45% Homeowners 46% 45% 45% 45% Renters 43% 46% 45% 10% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 11% 9% 10% 34% Executives/Top Level 32% 34% 36% 44% Mid-Level Employees 46% 43% 43% 22% Entry Level 22% 23% 21% *excludes those who don t know 63

64 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 28. How long does an employee have to * Accept a relocation offer 8% 1 week or less 11% 6% 8% 26% Up to 2 weeks 28% 27% 23% 15% Up to 3 weeks 15% 15% 14% 28% Up to 1 month 27% 33% 25% 11% Up to 2 months 13% 5% 15% 8% Up to 3 months 5% 7% 11% 4% More than 3 months 2% 6% 4% Report to work at the new location 5% 1 week or less 5% 6% 6% 17% Up to 2 weeks 18% 16% 17% 16% Up to 3 weeks 22% 11% 14% 29% Up to 1 month 28% 32% 27% 15% Up to 2 months 13% 15% 15% 11% Up to 3 months 8% 14% 11% 7% More than 3 months 6% 6% 10% *excludes those who don t know 29. How many of the following does your company allow for an employee undergoing relocation?* Expense-paid house-hunting trips with spouse/partner to the new location Of total sample: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Expense-paid days for employees to use for house-hunting trips (total amount allowed) (Average Shown) *excludes those who don t know How was the internet/technology used for relocation-related matters in 2020? 50% Communicate via with relocating employees 50% 58% 44% 38% Communicate via text messages with 38% 36% 39% relocating employees 32% Communicate via internet messaging 28% 39% 28% with relocating employees 27% Complete online forms for employee relocation 20% 32% 30% 26% Utilize company intranet platforms 26% 23% 30% 25% Research relocation-related matters 13% 27% 33% (policy, benchmarking, etc.) 23% Initiate/execute employee relocation services 11% 23% 35% 22% Utilize mobile applications from 17% 27% 22% relocation providers 20% Access relocation company website for 14% 20% 27% reporting or other services 18% Use web-based software platforms to 11% 22% 21% manage/vet suppliers 16% Utilize external social media/networking tools 14% 23% 12% 16% Audit/verify prices quoted for relocation services 11% 20% 18% 16% Research relocation service providers 12% 18% 17% 15% Data integration with relocation providers 13% 17% 16% (API arrangements, etc.)

65 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 15% Analytics/reporting on relocations/relocation 5% 16% 21% provider service 12% Verify GDPR/data privacy compliance of 9% 14% 14% relocation provider(s) 9% Dashboards/online reporting 5% 10% 11% 0% Other 0% 1% 0% 4% Did not use the internet/technology for 5% 3% 3% relocation-related matters in Is your company utilizing alternative assignments (e.g., extended business travel, cross-border commuting, rotational, localization, permanent international transfers, etc.)? 33% Yes, domestically (limited basis) 34% 40% 26% 24% Yes, domestically (frequently) 20% 23% 28% 22% Yes, internationally (frequently) 14% 21% 33% 20% Yes, internationally (limited basis) 16% 23% 22% 4% No, but we plan to do so in the coming year 5% 5% 3% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 22% No, and we do not plan to do so 28% 22% 18% 31a. How are these alternative assignment arrangements incorporated into your organization s overall employee mobility strategy? Of those utilizing alternative assignments : Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) 43% Accommodate employee needs 38% 47% 43% 41% Meet strategic business goals 44% 46% 35% 36% Develop internal talent 35% 40% 31% 34% Maximize budget/corporate resources 33% 35% 33% 27% In addition to long-term assignments 24% 29% 28% 23% Replace long-term assignments 21% 22% 27% 23% Replace regular short-term assignments 23% 25% 22% 12% In addition to regular short-term assignments 10% 15% 11% 1% Other 0% 0% 2% 31b. What are the key factors that determine if an alternative assignment method will be used? Of those utilizing alternative assignments : Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) 47% Business need 47% 48% 46% 44% Job function 38% 46% 47% 39% Career development 41% 42% 34% 34% Employee requests 25% 39% 36% 31% Assignment purpose 25% 39% 28% 30% Cost 24% 34% 30% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% D. RELOCATION COSTS 32. For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to...* 80% Pack all items 75% 80% 86% 78% Move an automobile 74% 81% 79% 73% Cover required COVID-19 quarantine 68% 79% 71% costs at destination 72% Unpack all items 69% 74% 74% 72% Move collections of highly valuable objects 66% 74% 75% like statuary, paintings, antiques 72% Move unlimited weight 65% 73% 77% 65

66 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 32 results continued) 72% Have permanent/extended storage 65% 78% 71% of some possessions 71% Move a second automobile 65% 74% 74% 70% Move via containerized shipment 66% 74% 71% 70% Move pets 63% 78% 70% 70% Move exercise equipment 62% 74% 73% 70% Partial/custom unpacking of items 65% 72% 72% 69% Have belongings picked up from a secondary 64% 72% 71% residence (summer home, relative's home, etc.) 68% Move recreation and lawn equipment 61% 72% 72% 67% Carry items down from the attic 58% 71% 71% 66% Sanitation services for residence(s) 63% 73% 62% 61% Move a boat 59% 63% 61% 51% Company does not pay for any of these items 58% 48% 48% or offers only lump sum *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 33. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a current homeowner who will be buying (not renting), does your company...* 76% Offer home-finding trips 69% 76% 83% 76% Offer temporary housing allowance 67% 79% 80% 74% Offer storage 69% 77% 76% 70% Offer home marketing assistance 64% 69% 76% 69% Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 64% 68% 75% 69% Reimburse/pay for home sale costs 61% 71% 74% 69% Reimburse/pay for federal tax liability 65% 69% 71% 66% Reimburse/pay for loss on sale 64% 69% 66% 65% Offer buyer value option for origin home 63% 61% 71% 64% Offer bonuses/incentives for 60% 67% 65% employee-generated home sale 64% Offer duplicate housing assistance 59% 63% 69% 63% Offer mortgage subsidy or allowance 60% 67% 63% 63% Offer guaranteed buyout/appraised value 61% 60% 66% option for origin home 51% Company does not offer any of these 61% 45% 49% benefits or offers only lump sum *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 34. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a current renter, does your company...* 79% Offer home-finding trips 74% 76% 85% 76% Offer temporary housing allowance 69% 81% 77% 73% Offer storage 66% 74% 77% 69% Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation 61% 68% 77% 68% Reimburse/pay apartment search 65% 66% 74% or finder's fees 66% Reimburse/pay for security deposits 67% 67% 65% 66% Reimburse/pay for furniture rental 68% 66% 63% 66% Offer rental subsidy or allowance 68% 67% 62% 64% Reimburse/pay for hookup fees 59% 68% 65% 62% Offer home purchase loans 62% 65% 60% 51% Company does not offer any of these 58% 44% 52% benefits or offers only lump sum *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 66

67 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 35. To what extent does your company reimburse relocation expenses: Transferees 69% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 63% 72% 71% 54% Lump sums 54% 58% 49% 47% Direct or managed cap programs 45% 49% 45% 53% Partial reimbursement based on salary, 46% 51% 60% position, policy tier, etc. 28% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 31% 23% 30% New hires 36% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 35% 33% 38% 56% Lump sums 54% 54% 60% 41% Direct or managed cap programs 38% 39% 46% 48% Partial reimbursement based on salary, 51% 46% 45% position, policy tier, etc. 29% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 33% 24% 29% 36. What approximate percentage of your relocations were: Payment type 41% Fully reimbursed/cost covered by company 41% 38% 44% 28% Lump-sum payment only (entire relo) 32% 27% 25% 24% Partially reimbursed by company 21% 27% 24% 7% Not reimbursed (employee paid) 6% 8% 7% Category (domestic only) 59% Traditional/permanent relocations 58% 58% 60% 21% Short-term relocation assignments (less than 22% 19% 22% 12 months in length) 18% Alternative assignments (i.e. rotational, 18% 20% 17% commuter, etc.) 2% Other 2% 2% 1% 36a. For what types of relocation costs are lump-sum payments typically offered to relocating employees (transferees OR new hires)? Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 38% Travel expenses (e.g., housing-hunting 38% 40% 35% trips, final move, etc.) 38% Entire relocation cost 41% 39% 35% 37% Temporary housing 26% 43% 40% 34% Miscellaneous expense allowances 31% 35% 35% 33% Household goods shipping/storage 32% 38% 29% 31% Rental assistance/transactions 30% 38% 24% 28% Real estate assistance/transactions 25% 29% 29% 1% Other 1% 0% 3% 36b. What types of relocating employees and relocation types most commonly receive lump-sum payments? Employee types Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 52% Experienced professionals 49% 59% 47% 45% Entry-level employees 42% 46% 47% 44% Executives 43% 57% 31% 67

68 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 36b results continued) 42% Transferees 41% 45% 41% 35% New hires 35% 35% 34% 26% Homeowners 21% 30% 28% 26% Renters 22% 24% 32% 2% Other 1% 0% 5% Relocation types Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 58% Domestic relocations 56% 65% 53% 52% Short-term/temporary assignments 51% 54% 52% 35% International long-term assignments 28% 43% 32% 17% Alternative assignment types 16% 15% 22% (e.g., commuters, EBTs, etc.) 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 36c. For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of the lump sums offered? Real estate assistance/transactions Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 14% No lump sum offered for this benefit 9% 11% 20% 33% Less than $5,000 44% 32% 23% 20% $5,000-$9,999 21% 17% 22% 32% $10,000 or more 25% 38% 31% 2% Don't know 2% 1% 4% Household goods shipping/storage Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 10% No lump sum offered for this benefit 8% 6% 17% 36% Less than $5,000 43% 38% 28% 24% $5,000-$9,999 25% 28% 19% 27% $10,000 or more 22% 26% 32% 3% Don't know 3% 2% 5% Entire relocation cost Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 5% No lump sum offered for this benefit 4% 4% 6% 18% Less than $5,000 21% 19% 14% 23% $5,000-$9,999 27% 18% 24% 51% $10,000 or more 46% 57% 51% 3% Don't know 3% 2% 5% Rental assistance/transactions Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 14% No lump sum offered for this benefit 13% 10% 20% 41% less than $2,500 48% 45% 29% 21% $2,500-$4,999 21% 20% 23% 21% $5,000 or more 15% 23% 24% 3% Don't know 3% 2% 4% Travel expenses Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 9% No lump sum offered for this benefit 5% 7% 15% 34% less than $2,500 41% 39% 21% 23% $2,500-$4,999 22% 23% 25% 68

69 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 30% $5,000 or more 26% 29% 34% 4% Don't know 5% 1% 5% Temporary housing Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 11% No lump sum offered for this benefit 8% 10% 15% 31% Less than $2,500 44% 31% 20% 21% $2,500-$4,999 21% 21% 21% 33% $5,000 or more 22% 36% 40% 4% Don't know 5% 2% 5% Miscellaneous expense allowances Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 9% No lump sum offered for this benefit 9% 7% 11% 36% Less than $2,500 44% 43% 23% 17% $2,500-$4,999 16% 18% 17% 32% $5,000 or more 26% 27% 42% 5% Don't know 5% 5% 6% 36d. How is lump-sum spending/allocation per employee tracked by your company? Performed by: Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 49% Human Resources staff member 53% 56% 39% 37% Finance/procurement department 39% 39% 34% 29% Relocation team staff member 22% 34% 29% 28% Relocation company managed cap program 28% 26% 31% 28% Relocating employee 24% 29% 30% 1% Other 0% 0% 2% 4% Not tracked 2% 2% 7% Method: Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 35 & 36) 45% Submission of expense reports 50% 51% 35% 37% Excel spreadsheet 34% 39% 37% 36% Relocation company report 29% 37% 40% 34% In-house software report 32% 37% 32% 30% Online reporting tool/mobile app 31% 27% 31% 1% Other 0% 0% 2% 5% Not tracked 4% 3% 8% E. EMPLOYEE, SPOUSE & ASSISTANCE ISSUES 37. What is the age range of your most frequently relocated salaried employee?* 8% Less than 30 years 13% 9% 3% 33% years 31% 33% 36% 34% years 35% 37% 31% 18% years 16% 17% 21% 5% years 6% 4% 7% 1% More than 50 years 0% 0% 3% *excludes those who don t know 69

70 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 38. Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers? 14% No, candidate assessments are not performed 14% 14% 13% 37% Yes, for all relocations 33% 47% 33% 37% Yes, for domestic relocations 37% 36% 36% 17% Yes, for international relocations 16% 19% 15% 14% Yes, for transferees 16% 12% 14% 12% Yes, for new hires 11% 10% 13% 8% Yes, based on policy tier/reimbursement level 8% 6% 11% 7% Yes, on an "as needed/requested" basis 8% 5% 9% 1% Other 0% 1% 1% 39. In 2020, what approximate percentage of your relocations involved:* 21% Female employees 21% 24% 18% 20% Wife/female partner (Trailing spouse) 19% 22% 20% 16% Husband/male partner (Trailing spouse) 15% 18% 15% 25% Employees with children 21% 31% 22% *excludes those who don t know 40. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee in the following caregiving situations? Elder care: 28% No elder care assistance 35% 27% 24% 33% Allow employee to use pretax dollars 32% 30% 38% for outside care 32% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 22% 38% 34% 29% Provide list of nursing homes and/or 25% 29% 34% day-care centers 24% Provide paid personal leave days 22% 27% 22% 16% Relocate an elderly relative who does not live 16% 12% 21% with the employee currently, but will live either with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 1% Other 1% 1% 1% Childcare: 22% No childcare assistance 30% 20% 17% 39% Provide list of local schools/educational options 32% 42% 41% 31% Provide list of childcare providers/services 26% 38% 29% and/or agencies 30% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 26% 35% 28% 24% Provide paid personal leave days 23% 25% 24% 20% Allow employee to use pretax dollars 13% 18% 28% for outside care 17% Reimburse childcare costs 14% 19% 16% 1% Other 1% 0% 1% 41. How frequently is an employee s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee s spouse/partner?* 11% Almost always 13% 4% 18% 56% Frequently 47% 59% 63% 29% Seldom 36% 32% 18% 3% Never 4% 4% 2% 70 *excludes those who don t know

71 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 42. Does your company allow the hiring of spouses of employees?* 12% No 15% 15% 6% 45% Yes, but not in the same department/division 45% 37% 53% 27% Yes, without restriction 21% 31% 29% 16% Yes, but not at the same location 20% 16% 12% *excludes those who don t know 42a. Does your company assist an employee s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location? 79% % of companies indicating "Yes" 73% 79% 86% 42b. How does your company assist an employee s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location? Of those who did not answer Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried No assistance to Question 42a: 38% Provide interviewing skills training 33% 41% 39% 37% Provide networking assistance 33% 43% 33% 34% Provide resume preparation assistance 31% 30% 38% 34% Pay for outplacement/career services 27% 34% 38% from an outside firm 29% Reimburse for career transition expenses 30% 27% 30% (e.g., interview trips, certifications, etc.) 24% Find employment outside company 27% 30% 18% 18% Find employment within company 20% 20% 13% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 42c. What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used this employment assistance?* Of those who did not answer Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried No assistance to Question 42a: 24% Average percent 22% 27% 23% *excludes those who don t know F. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT 43. Which of the following services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO, or brokerage firm in 2020? 18% Did not use a relocation service, HRO, or 28% 16% 11% brokerage firm in % Management of full relocation program 21% 35% 29% 28% Counseling about the planning and details 19% 26% 38% of relocation 25% Counseling about company policy 17% 32% 24% 20% Coordination and monitoring of shipment 16% 20% 24% 18% Real estate purchase 14% 17% 24% 18% Orientation tours at new location 11% 18% 26% 18% Contract of household goods carrier 11% 18% 24% 17% Arrangement of family's transportation 14% 14% 24% and accommodations 16% Real estate sales/marketing 10% 16% 22% 16% Assistance with employee claims preparation 11% 16% 20% and submission 15% Property management 11% 20% 13% 71

72 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 43 results continued) 13% Supplementary services 9% 14% 16% (e.g., appliances, cleaning, etc.) 13% Expense management/tracking/reimbursement 10% 13% 16% services 11% Compensation services 11% 10% 14% (e.g. payroll arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 10% Tax gross-up assistance 5% 11% 13% 10% Audit and/or payment of invoice(s) 8% 8% 14% 9% Management of service provider(s) GDPR/data 5% 12% 9% privacy law compliance 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 43a. Which department(s) at your company select a relocation service, HRO, or brokerage firm? Of those where company outsourced: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43) 65% Human Resources 55% 82% 55% 35% Relocation/Mobility Services 32% 26% 47% 32% Executive Management 39% 31% 28% 14% Procurement 11% 10% 20% 0% Other 0% 1% 0% 44. Are carrier transportation expenses paid directly by the company or paid by the employee and then reimbursed? Transferees 85% Paid directly by the company 81% 86% 88% 46% Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 52% 44% 42% 41% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 38% 41% 45% New hires 44% Paid directly by the company 42% 43% 46% 63% Paid by the employee then reimbursed 61% 66% 60% 37% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 40% 30% 42% 45. Who selects the household goods carrier for your employee s relocation? 27% The company 24% 27% 29% 36% The company and employee together 36% 40% 30% 27% The employee 33% 24% 25% 10% A relocation firm 6% 9% 16% 0% Other 1% 0% 1% 45a. Which department(s) at your company select the household goods carrier for your employee s relocation? Of those where company is involved in selection: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 45) 66% Human Resources 61% 78% 57% 37% Relocation/Mobility Services 38% 36% 37% 30% Executive Management 33% 26% 34% 15% Procurement 16% 8% 21% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 72

73 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 46. What additional services did the COVID-19 pandemic cause you to ask relocation services providers to perform to meet relocating employee needs? 59% Wear masks 58% 67% 51% 52% Wear gloves 51% 53% 53% 44% Perform COVID-19 exposure checks 44% 47% 40% 42% Maintain social distancing 42% 52% 32% 42% Use hand sanitizer frequently 43% 47% 35% 39% Perform fever checks 36% 47% 36% 39% Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) 37% 37% 43% 25% Wipe down boxes upon delivery with 25% 32% 18% sanitizing wipes 25% Sanitization of origin residence after loading 27% 28% 21% 22% Quarantine support services (e.g., grocery 24% 19% 23% delivery, check-ins, etc.) 21% Sanitization of destination residence 16% 27% 19% before delivery 18% Deliver groceries/essentials before arrival 20% 21% 14% 13% Sanitizing truck cab and trailer interior between 11% 15% 13% shipment loading/unloading 9% Sanitizing small shipment vault interior/exterior 11% 10% 7% between shipments 1% Other 0% 1% 3% 11% No additional services requested 13% 12% 9% G. INTERNATIONAL 47a. Compared to 2019, did the number of employees your company relocated internationally during Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 14% Increase Significantly 15% 15% 14% 19% Increase Somewhat 18% 18% 19% 29% Stay About the Same 36% 23% 30% 19% Decrease Somewhat 18% 26% 15% 19% Decrease Significantly 13% 18% 23% 47b. Compared to 2020, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during 2021 will... Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 21% Increase Significantly 22% 16% 25% 34% Increase Somewhat 24% 34% 41% 31% Stay About the Same 40% 32% 25% 9% Decrease Somewhat 11% 11% 7% 4% Decrease Significantly 4% 7% 2% 47c. What is the typical international relocation assignment duration for employees at your company? Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 6% Less than 3 months 15% 1% 6% 45% 4 to 12 months 53% 49% 36% 34% Greater than 12 months, but less than 3 years 27% 32% 40% 15% 3 years or more 5% 18% 18% 73

74 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 47d. In 2020, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:* Assignment length (average percent) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 28% Less than 12 months (short-term) 30% 29% 26% 33% 1-3 years (traditional/long-term) 31% 32% 36% 27% More than 3 years (extended or permanent) 27% 28% 26% 12% Other assignment type (EBT, virtual, 12% 12% 12% commuter, rotational, etc.) Reimbursement method (average percent) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 54% Fully covered/reimbursed 44% 54% 60% 20% Lump-sum payment only 26% 20% 15% 19% Partially reimbursed 23% 18% 17% 8% Not reimbursed 7% 8% 8% *excludes those who don t know 47e. Compared to 2020, do you expect the number of international short-term/ temporary assignments (less than 12 months) in 2021 to... Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 14% Increase Significantly 9% 12% 19% 44% Increase Somewhat 42% 45% 43% 31% Stay About the Same 29% 30% 33% 7% Decrease Somewhat 18% 4% 3% 4% Decrease Significantly 2% 8% 1% 47f. Does your company have a formal policy for the following types of international relocations? Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 69% International Relocation Assignments 65% 69% 70% (1-3 years) 52% Permanent Transfers (international) 35% 63% 55% 51% Localization (international) 36% 52% 60% 48% Intra-Regional Assignments (international) 40% 56% 46% % of companies answering "Yes" 47g. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within the following international relocation policies? International relocation assignments (1-3 years) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 32% No tiers or levels/single policy 31% 33% 33% 34% Two tiers 42% 41% 23% 21% Three tiers 17% 24% 20% 7% Four tiers 6% 2% 11% 7% Five tiers or more 6% 0% 13% 2.2 Average Number of International Relocation Assignment Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) Permanent transfers (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 34% No tiers or levels/single policy 21% 39% 35% 28% Two tiers 53% 27% 19% 24% Three tiers 21% 27% 23% 74

75 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 12% Four tiers 5% 7% 19% 2% Five tiers or more 0% 0% 4% 2.2 Average Number of Permanent Transfer Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) Localization (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 36% No tiers or levels/single policy 25% 37% 40% 27% Two tiers 40% 26% 23% 20% Three tiers 10% 20% 23% 12% Four tiers 20% 14% 8% 5% Five tiers or more 5% 3% 6% 2.2 Average Number of Localization Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) Intra-regional assignments (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 25% No tiers or levels/single policy 19% 29% 24% 30% Two tiers 29% 37% 24% 25% Three tiers 29% 29% 18% 14% Four tiers 19% 0% 26% 6% Five tiers or more 5% 5% 8% 2.5 Average Number of Intra-Regional Assignments Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 47h. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with International tiers/levels: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 47g) 48% Job or Grade Level (e.g., staff, management, 41% 49% 51% professional, etc.) 43% Length of Assignment 38% 47% 44% 30% Position/Job Title 38% 35% 23% 30% Homeowner/Renter Status 41% 26% 28% 30% Assignment Objectives (e.g., developmental, etc.)25% 30% 32% 30% Assignment Location/Region 28% 30% 30% 29% New Hire/Current Employee Status 28% 23% 33% 28% Company- vs. Employee-Initiated Relocation 22% 26% 33% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 47i. 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 ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 6% No difference between international and 4% 8% 7% domestic relocation policies 31% Additional tax considerations 25% 23% 42% 30% Higher relocation allowances 20% 34% 32% 27% Stronger data privacy protocols/protection 20% 29% 31% rules for service provider(s) 26% Additional leave time 27% 29% 24% 26% International transportation allowance 29% 21% 28% (e.g., rental car, commuting costs, etc.) 25% Rental housing allowance 20% 26% 28% 25% Intercultural and language training 27% 15% 31% 24% Extended per diem charges 24% 22% 25% 23% Allowances for children to attend 16% 25% 25% certain schools 23% Additional leave time that includes at least 9% 21% 33% one visit back to the employee's home country 75

76 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY (Question 47i results continued) 22% Financial services assistance (e.g., bank account 24% 16% 26% setup, specialized compensation arrangements) 21% Allowances for permanent storage 18% 23% 20% 19% Cover costs of required COVID-19 quarantine 11% 22% 20% in host country 18% Security support program 18% 16% 18% 17% Remote buying/selling/renting of housing 13% 18% 19% 15% Require COVID-19 vaccination of relocating 16% 16% 13% employee and accompanying family 13% Allowances for elder care 13% 19% 8% 0% Other 0% 1% 0% 47j. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO, or brokerage firm in 2020? Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 11% Did not use a relocation service, HRO, or 9% 14% 9% brokerage firm for international relocation services in % Counseling about company policy concerning 31% 29% 32% international relocation 29% Counseling about the planning & details of 35% 22% 31% relocating internationally 28% Property management of home at origin 26% 33% 24% 27% Destination services/orientation tours 26% 16% 36% in host country 24% Coordination and monitoring of 22% 18% 31% international shipment 22% Securing rental property in host country 19% 19% 28% 21% Management of international relocation program 11% 32% 20% 18% Contract of household goods carrier for 9% 14% 28% international shipping 18% International real estate (sales/marketing 13% 15% 23% and/or purchases) 16% Arrangement of family's temporary 9% 11% 24% accommodations 16% Visa & immigration services 11% 15% 20% 15% Intercultural and language training 13% 11% 20% 14% Arrangement of family's international 11% 7% 21% transportation 13% Expense management/tracking/reimbursement 11% 8% 17% services 11% Compensation services (e.g., payroll 13% 8% 11% arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 9% Management of service provider(s) GDPR/data 11% 8% 9% privacy law compliance 7% Repatriation services 0% 7% 11% 0% Other 0% 0% 1% 76 47k. How does your company assist an internationally relocated employee s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location? Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 10% No assistance 7% 16% 7% 34% Pay for work visa in new location 17% 37% 41% 34% Provide networking assistance 43% 29% 32% 31% Provide resume preparation assistance 26% 32% 33% 30% Pay for outplacement/career services from 24% 33% 31% an outside firm 27% Provide interviewing skills training 37% 18% 29% 24% Reimburse for career transition expenses 35% 18% 22% (e.g., interview trips, certifications, etc.) 19% Find employment outside company 17% 21% 20% 11% Find employment within company 9% 10% 13% 1% Other 0% 0% 2%

77 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 47l. In 2020, what reasons were cited for an employee declining an international relocation or for an international relocation to fail? Of those who answered "Yes" Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: 10% No international relocations declined or failed 5% 12% 11% 44% Health concerns/illness/covid-19 pandemic 42% 55% 35% 27% Family issues/ties 16% 34% 27% 22% Safety concerns (e.g., war/terrorism/ 31% 19% 19% political unrest/etc.) 21% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 16% 19% 25% 21% Personal reason (nondisclosed) 18% 19% 24% 19% Financial issues/concerns 13% 19% 23% 18% Job performance issues 18% 22% 14% 17% Host country infrastructure inadequacies 20% 10% 22% 17% Lack of family support services 24% 15% 15% 15% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 13% 11% 20% 15% Host country prohibits spouse/partner 15% 14% 16% accompaniment 13% Lack of adaptability by employee 13% 7% 17% 5% Don't know 5% 3% 7% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% H. CORPORATE/RESPONDENT PROFILE 48. Which one of the following most accurately describes your company s business classification? 59% Service (Profit) (includes educational services, 60% 64% 53% healthcare, high-tech, etc.) 20% Manufacturing/Processing 14% 22% 23% 9% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 14% 4% 9% 5% Wholesale/Retail 4% 3% 10% 1% Service (Nonprofit) (includes religious 2% 1% 1% institutions, charities, etc.) 1% Government/Military/Public Administration 1% 1% 1% 4% Other 5% 4% 4% 49. What were your company s annual sales for 2020?* 11% Less than $25 million 21% 12% 0% 9% $26-$50 million 19% 8% 1% 9% $51-$99 million 15% 12% 1% 13% $100-$249 million 22% 13% 3% 11% $250-$499 million 9% 12% 11% 14% $500-$749 million 9% 15% 19% 17% $750 million-$1 billion 4% 17% 29% 16% Over $1 billion 2% 10% 36% *excludes blank responses 50. What is your department s function? 41% HR/Personnel General/Administration 43% 45% 35% 26% HR/Personnel Compensation & Benefits 23% 31% 23% 15% HR/Personnel Talent Management 20% 12% 12% 9% Relocation/Mobility Services 2% 8% 17% 5% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 5% 3% 7% 4% Finance/Accounting 5% 2% 4% 1% Other 1% 0% 1% 77

78 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 51. What is your position within the company? 7% President 7% 6% 8% 14% Vice President 18% 10% 13% 28% Director 30% 36% 19% 24% Manager 20% 31% 21% 4% Supervisor 5% 2% 6% 9% Relocation Administrator 6% 5% 16% 4% Coordinator 4% 5% 4% 2% Recruiter 3% 1% 4% 5% HR Assistant 5% 4% 6% 2% Other 3% 0% 4% 52. Which of the following trade publication(s) do you regularly read? 12% None 11% 12% 13% 46% HR Magazine 55% 52% 31% 32% Human Resource Executive 29% 38% 29% 29% HR News 26% 36% 24% 24% Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today 24% 27% 21% 24% Employee Benefits News 27% 25% 21% 23% Workforce 23% 25% 20% 20% Mobility 15% 17% 26% 16% National Relocation & Real Estate 13% 18% 16% 15% The Relocation Report 14% 15% 14% 10% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 13% 5% 13% 0% Other(s) 1% 0% 1% 53. To what relocation-related association(s) do you currently belong? 19% None 23% 20% 14% 37% Society of Human Resource 36% 45% 31% Management (SHRM) 30% Human Resources Professionals 23% 34% 32% Association (HRPA) 28% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee 20% 20% 42% Relocation Council ERC) 16% Regional or local relocation council 14% 10% 24% 12% Canadian Employee Relocation Council 9% 14% 12% (CERC Canada) 10% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 12% 6% 12% 9% Forum for Expatriate Management (FEM) 8% 7% 11% 1% Other(s) 1% 1% 1% 78

79 INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES 79

80 ATLAS WORLD GROUP 2021 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY THE 54TH ANNUAL ATLAS CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY The Industry s Longest Running Survey Every year since 1968, Atlas has collected input from corporate decision makers, analyzed it, and reported our findings. We illuminate the finer points of relocation to bring the bigger picture into focus. You re invited to take part in next year s survey. Your perspective can help the world better see how our industry works. To be included in the 55th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey, sign up at: AtlasVanLines.com/TakeSurvey Visit us at atlasvanlines.com or contact us at To see survey results from prior years including charts and graphs for every question, visit: or contact: Lauren Crays laucray@atlasworldgroup.com TM & 2021 AWGI LLC Atlas Van Lines, Inc Saint George Rd., Evansville, IN Form No. CC