What can organisations consider other than fully and physically relocating part of their operation?
Increasingly, international businesses need a global presence.
Online communication is quick and cost effective. But it doesn’t replace the power of face-to-face rapport and cultural courtesy.
A new report from Grant Thornton reminds business leaders that there are choices alongside full migration to consider – many with simpler processes and cost savings.
Four global relocation options are suggested:
1. Full migration – a simpler tax and legal framework can be achieved however any reputational challenges and costs must be considered
2. Intellectual property regional hubs – relocation of IP activities maximises protection and minimised tax.
3. Offshoring – this option capitalises upon the availability of technical staff, tax efficiencies and investment incentives
4. Lower risk models – where physical relocation isn’t possible, operations can be run through a commissionaire, franchise or licence model. This reduces risk and also profitability.
Each of these options can offer access to markets, cost savings and simplified compliance requirements. There is another crucial factor that they have in common: people.
Businesses need to be aware of what can stop talent mobility from being successful. Research by Lee Hecht Harrison’s 2015 Talent Mobility research identified the three most common re
• No strategic approach in place to develop future talent needs
• Talent ‘territorialism’ amongst key stakeholdersRegardless of the commercial objectives, organisations must prepare the people involved. Penny Shawah writes for Mobility Magazine. She explains: “All in all, moving overseas can sometimes be a stressful experience, but in most cases, a truly exhilarating one. With the right preparation, a few checklists, and some open dialogue, the right service provider will make the process a smooth one.”