Expatriates in Hardship Locations: Dealing with Emergencies

By Olivier Meier and Slagin Parakatil, Mercer

The multiplicity of crises in 2017 – natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, political turmoil, and civil wars – have reminded us that sending employees on international assignments can represent a huge responsibility and a difficult task to manage. It’s true that HR teams will not face these issues alone and will be supported by other teams within the company as well as external advisers. Still, HR teams will be on the front line when dealing with some of these dramatic events and their consequences for international assignees.

Here are some important things to bear in mind when dealing with emergencies and hardship locations in general.

Make Sure You Have the Right Support in Place but Remember It Might Not Be Enough

The first step is to make sure that the basics are in place and that the company can rely on a robust network of providers to deal with difficult and emergency situations.

Which of the following special measures do you have in place for some or all assignment locations?*

Measure	Prevalence
Emergency medical evacuation service	48%
Access to emergency 24/7 hotline	47%
Email alerts about health and security risks	42%
Training in security and evacuation procedures	29%
Security guards on premises	27%
Armored vehicle	18%
Kidnap and ransom insurance	10%
Bodyguard	8%
War risk insurance	7%
Other	4%
None of the above	21%

Source: Mercer’s 2017 Worldwide International Assignment Policies and Practices Survey.
*More than one answer possible.

However, insurers and security providers cannot fully replace companies’ in-house teams and their knowledge about expatriates. Dealing with human implications and long-term consequences of emergencies remains the responsibility of the HR team.

We are sometimes asked by companies if we have to take into consideration issues such as healthcare in the hardship assessment of locations because these companies already provide comprehensive health insurance? The problem is that the insurance doesn’t fully eliminate the hardship – in case of an accident, expatriates would still face risks until they are evacuated or can access treatment in a hospital meeting international standards.

Medical insurance doesn’t replace a good process managed by the company and doesn’t exonerate companies from paying a hardship allowance. The same logic goes for security, housing, schooling, and practical support.

Not All Companies Are Equal in Hardship Destinations

Large multinationals operating routinely in hardship locations have robust support networks and processes to deal with emergencies. It might not be the case of other companies that have fewer resources, smaller operations on the ground or more limited experience of hardship destinations. In fact, almost 40% of organizations report that they don’t have evacuation policy in place or are still trying to develop one.

Do you have an evacuation policy in the event of non-medical emergencies (e.g. political, natural disaster)?

Response	Prevalence
Yes, we have a formal policy	44%
Yes, we have an informal policy	12%
No, but we are developing a policy	5%
No, we don’t have a policy	34%
Other	5%

Source: Mercer’s 2017 Worldwide International Assignment Policies and Practices Survey

It makes sense for organizations with more limited resources to pool resources with other companies and develop a network to provide a detailed evacuation strategy as well as on-going support for assignees and their families. Reaching out to other companies operating in the same hardship area is a priority for HR teams.

Not All Assignees Are Equal in Hardship Destinations

The level of risk is not the same for all employees in all locations. Assignees can be the target of discrimination because of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, social class, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. This is further complicated by the fact that some minorities are invisible. Furthermore family members of the expatriates themselves can be the target of discriminations. HR teams might not be aware of these issues.

There is sometimes a disconnection between the diversity initiatives at HQ levels and the realities of mobility on the ground. At worst, it can lead to unspoken misconceptions and prompt management to assume that women or minorities might not be suitable for specific assignments or destinations.

These misconceptions should be challenged and an objectively assessment of the level of hardship for all employees categories should take place. Practical support, training and mentoring for both the assignee and the staff in the destination country can in many cases alleviate discriminations and prejudices.

Communication channels should be put in place to encourage employees to raise concerns without invading in their privacy or without risk of being criticized for turning down assignments. These discussions need to take place when the companies are developing their potential expat talent pool rather than later in the process when the final selection is being made.

Who and When to Evacuate?

When the worst happens in the host destination, crucial decisions have to be made in a relatively short period of time. It doesn’t suffice to say that the company will evacuate everybody in case of problems. The question is more complex and require to think about who should take the decision to evacuate, who should be evacuated (families, expatriates, locals or all) and when.

Who has the authority to make the decision to evacuate?

Decision maker	Prevalence
The heath and security department of our company	33%
The local head of business	27%
The CEO	15%
It depends on reason for evacuation	13%
Other	12%

Source: Mercer’s 2017 Worldwide International Assignment Policies and Practices Survey

Deciding who should be evacuated is a complex question? Only expatriates or all employees? Is it morally acceptable to differentiate? What are the practical implications if everybody has to be evacuated?

The multiplication of employee categories – including locally hired foreigners who don’t benefit from a guarantee of repatriation and who were not relocated by the company in the first place – can complicate the task. This could lead to situations where the company has to relocate employees to a third country which is not their home location or repatriate them to a home country that they left so long ago and where they don’t have accommodation, a local support network, or family left.

The question of timing or simply determining if an evacuation is needed is also a complex one. The Fukushima disaster provides a good example: expatriates in Tokyo were not in direct danger but there were health concerns that were difficult to evaluate at the time of the disaster. Companies had to determine if they were going to evacuate their employees, only the family of the employees or ask their employees to stay as the situation was expected to be under control. The challenge for the companies was to understand the implications of these decisions and what message it was sending to both expatriates and Japanese employees.

Giving the option to evacuate or not is leading to another issue:

Freedom of Choice and Its Limitations

Should we give more freedom to employees to decide if they want to take a chance and stay? In case of extreme situations, the debate can be quickly resolved but in less urgent scenarios, the risk is that flexibility and freedom of choice could lead employees to put themselves in harm’s way.

The concept of duty of care is coming back in force and it is not limited to a legal obligation to preserve employees, it extends into reputation and moral issues. In the strict sense, duty of care is about taking all possible steps to ensure the safety, health, and wellbeing of employees. This is a legal requirement that companies cannot ignore. The scope of duty of care is wider than many think and applies, to a large extent, to the family of the assignees – it is applicable if the family is relocated to the host location with the employee but sometimes also when the family doesn’t live abroad and just visits the assignee for a short period of time.

It’s a matter of trust and credibility for the company, and it could affect recruiting and retention. If a problem arises, the impact to the company’s reputation could be disproportionate: the news that the company is not looking properly after its assignees would spread fast on expat networks and in discussion groups.

Determining how much flexibility you can give to assignees is a delicate exercise. Experienced expatriates might be tempted to decide for themselves. Too much flexibility is a risk – and it is not a question that can be mitigated by putting disclaimers in employees’ contracts. Companies cannot wash their hands of these issues.

When Getting Out of the Country Is Only the First Step

In case of an emergency, managing a successful evacuation is only the first step. The evacuation will trigger a host of consequences that companies and HR will have to deal with, such as:

• How to deal with temporary accommodation in the home country or in a third country
• Providing schooling for the expatriate children
• Ensuring continuity of work for relocated employee
• Pay and benefits arrangements

Repatriating a couple of employees is not a problem but when dealing with a large number of employees these tasks take a completely different dimension and will test the resources of HR teams.

Compliance, Tax, and Immigration: The Final Straw?

As the jokes goes: “Only death and taxes are certain.” As if HR teams hadn’t other things in mind in times of crises, they might have to deal with compliance issues.

There are implications of unexpected repatriation or unplanned relocation in terms of tax, immigration, and compliance – starting with basic ones, like how do you secure visas for relocating employees to a third country at short notice?

Some of these considerations might seem mundane compared to the risks that employees have been facing but as life goes back to normal, HR teams and the employees themselves will be swamped with paperwork. Urgency is no excuse for non-compliance and the situation of all employees will have to be regularized in due course. This will cost time and money to both companies and the employees (who could turn back to their employers for compensation.)

Lifting the Fog of War

The military refers to the uncertainty experienced by participants in military operations as "the fog of war." Companies need clarity about the situation on the ground to make informed decisions. The governmental sources provide reliable high level information at country level and on major cities, the level of details might not be sufficient. Furthermore, governmental sources tend to a have a different scope and purpose compared to what companies require. It is important for companies to have different objective sources to assess the quality of living of assignment locations.

What is the primary source used to determine the hardship premium?

Source	Prevalence
Data provider’s recommendations	74%
A combination of sources and factors	14%
Government sources	8%
Others	2%
Management’s discretion	2%

Source: Mercer’s 2017 Worldwide International Assignment Policies and Practices Survey

The second pillar of companies’ processes should be employee tracking. The fast growth of new forms of mobility including commuters, extended business trips, and locally hired foreigners increase the risk of assignees flying under the radar. At the same time, new technologies facilitate real time reporting without having to request that employees manually report their movements.

Beyond Gloom and Doom, the Reward of Making a Meaningful Contribution

After this grim list of potential problems, here is the good news: professionals who have dealt with this type of crisis have found it stressful but view it as one of the most rewarding tasks of their career.

Mobility management encompasses such a range of responsibilities that a mobility manager who might one day spend her time arguing with expatriates about cost of living allowances or pet relocation issues could be making decisions the next day that affect the safety and wellbeing of employees and their families, while guiding them through life-threatening situations.

Contact the authors: Olivier Meier and Slagin Parakatil

More on these topics:

• Quality of Living
• Seven Dilemmas Facing the Future of Global Mobility
• Diversity in Non-diverse Locations
• Talent Mobility Buzzwords and Current Mobility Practices