A successful international assignment starts long before an employee commences their new role abroad. The support they receive during the move – from temporary accommodation and shipping to orientation and settling-in assistance – can determine how quickly they settle, how engaged they feel, and ultimately whether the assignment succeeds.

However, in many cases, relocation benefit packages remain rooted in pre-pandemic thinking. As costs rise and employee expectations evolve, global mobility (GM) professionals face a growing challenge: designing relocation packages that set employees up for success while maintaining cost control and flexibility.

ECA’s International Relocation Benefits Survey provides essential benchmarking data to help organisations ensure their policies remain effective and competitive. With the latest edition now open, we explore some of the key themes shaping today’s relocation strategies, and what we expect to see reflected in the results.

The demand for flexibility?

Flexibility has become one of the defining themes in relocation policy design. Traditional one-size-fits-all packages are giving way to more adaptable models, but the pace and form of change vary widely.

In our previous International Relocation Benefits Survey, 42% of organisations had already adopted a flexible approach to relocation benefits, with a further 18% considering doing so. Yet findings from ECA’s Benefits for International Assignments Survey earlier this year showed that growth in flexible approaches to on-assignment benefits had stalled, while some are shifting away from simple lump sums toward core-flex models that provide more control and consistency.

This highlights a key challenge for mobility teams: understanding how flexibility can actually deliver better outcomes. Does it genuinely improve employee satisfaction, or does it introduce complexity and uneven experiences? Do lump sums reduce administrative effort, or do they simply transfer decision-making burdens to assignees without real savings?

The latest results will reveal whether this levelling-off seen for on-assignment benefits is also the case for relocation-specific ones, as well as any other trends surrounding flexible approaches.

  The cost conundrum

Relocation costs are often significant, making cost management essential. However, indiscriminate cuts rarely work. Removing the wrong benefits can cause assignment failures, harm your employer brand, or create inequity across your mobile population.

So how are organisations looking to optimise the cost-effectiveness of their relocation support packages?

• Look-see visits – some organisations have scaled these back, while others see them as a springboard to assignment success. How common are they today?
• Shipping and storage – following the cost surges immediately post-pandemic, freight rates have largely returned to more typical levels. In light of this, could shifting to smaller consignments, consolidated shipments, or lower-emission options deliver better value and resilience?
• Temporary accommodation – with policies varying widely, are you overspending on extended hotel stays, or pushing assignees into unsuitable housing?
• Settling-in allowances – does the allowance amount reflect the actual cost of the items it is intended to cover?

Without solid benchmarking, these decisions are guesswork.

Is sustainability still in focus?

Sustainability rose rapidly up the global agenda in recent years, but how much influence is it having on mobility policy decisions?

Replacing shipping provision with furniture allowances or furnished accommodation to reduce carbon emissions, providing surface freight rather than air freight when household goods are shipped, and reviewing class of travel for relocation flights are some changes in approach that improve sustainability credentials.

Yet practical tensions remain. Can reducing or removing shipping support compromise the employee experience or employer duty of care? Will assignees accept smaller shipments or longer transit times for environmental reasons?

Balancing sustainability ambitions with practicality, fairness and duty of care remains a delicate task. As organisations reassess priorities, it will be telling to see how much of an influence sustainability has on policy design.