D uty of care is defined as an employer's legal and moral responsibility to protect the health and well-being of their workforce, wherever they may be. With employees being granted greater freedom and choice when relocating, it's an obligation that’s becoming harder and harder for employers to fulfil. “Upholding duty of care is more chal- lenging now than it has been in the past, especially with the increase in self-service models within mobility," explains Jennifer Connell, practice leader, consulting & advisory services, with Weichert Workforce Mobility. "We see that kind of freedom a lot in lump sum programs in the U.S. and managed lump sum programs in Canada." On top of this, companies are expanding their global footprint into regions that may pose any number of risks (e.g. political upheavals, regional conflicts, natural disasters, etc.). Here again, the autonomy afforded to assignees through lump sum packages or self-serve models can expose organizations to risks that that would be easier to navigate in more familiar destinations. CERC's recent Survey of Corporate Practices in the Duty of Care Policies and Programs shows that duty of care remains top of mind for Canadian employers. A majority of survey participants (70 per cent) say they have duty of care and risk management practices in place to protect their global mobile workforce, while over three quarters are confident their HR/ mobility department is engaged early enough in the process to ensure suffi- cient lead time when assessing duty of care considerations. Who should have greater control over the relocation process? The argument goes both ways. While employers want their assignees to feel empowered in the process, there is also a need to ensure they are making the most responsible decisions with up-to-date information. “That's where lump sum programs can be tricky, particularly if you're moving young people,” says Chris Zarkadoulas, director of global mobility with Sun Life Financial. “Sometimes, people make the wrong decisions in terms of their travel methods or the types of neighbour- hoods and accommodation they want to live in, and a lot of those decisions are driven by their desire to save money. So, the challenge is finding that balance between giving people that money and flexibility, but making sure they make the best choices for themselves.” Many employers prefer to have greater control over the riskier decisions. For example, less than half of CERC survey respondents (40 per cent) said employees were free to make their own travel arrangements. “It's all about a company's appetite for risk,” Zark- adoulas says. “We tend to be a little bit more cautious. We give them a budget they can work with, but we still ask them to work with our relocation providers and take advice from people on the ground.” A PLACE TO STAY Finding an ideal home for assignees is a critical part of duty of care, and here again, it’s a decision that must weigh the assignee's preferences against the employer's appetite for risk. “Housing is the number one concern when it comes to duty of care,” says Connell. “Assignees left to manage their own funds will often pick the least expensive option. But if they don't pick somewhere safe, or somewhere vetted by the mobility team or their reloca- tion partners, that can lead to issues down the road.” Many employers manage this risk in the policy itself. Thirty-seven per cent of CERC's survey respondents place restrictions on where their employees can DUTY OF CARE: A BALANCING ACT SAFETY & SECURITY By Matthew Bradford Companies are weighing their assignees’ desire for more freedom against their responsibility to keep them safe 18 PERSPECTIVES Summer 2019