Alexis Boudier

International mobility and GECs (Global Employment Companies): the example of Arkema

Arkema is a leader in specialty materials, employing over 20,000 people around the world. It offers a wide variety of materials – technical polymers, additives, resins for paint or adhesives – with a multitude of applications for clients in a range of sectors (automotive, aeronautics, cosmetics, etc.).
Fortified by its policy of targeted acquisitions and industrial investment, the group, which was essentially present in Europe and the United States when it was set up in 2006, is now more international than ever with a presence in 55 countries distributed evenly across Asia, Europe and North America.
The group, whose expatriate population currently varies between 70 and 100 people, has chosen to manage its international mobility via a GEC (Global Employment Company).

Alexis Boudier, Compensation and international mobility manager, explains

Alexis, could you introduce yourself and tell us about international mobility management at Arkema?

I joined Groupe Arkema in 2018 and have been compensation and international mobility manager for 2 years.
The international mobility service is part of the corporate C&B department and is on the front line in supporting Arkema’s international growth by meeting 2 needs: 
•    on the one hand, that of constantly providing the group with the experts it needs around the world;
•    on the other, that of allowing talent development through international experience (a search for a range of nationalities, cultures and profiles, clearly promoted by the group).
Our service uses a GEC to support its management.

How would you define a GEC and what are the specific characteristics of Arkema’s GEC?

A GEC (Global Employment Company), is a legal entity in its own right, separate from home and host companies, bringing employees on international assignments under the same entity.
Regardless of the home or host country, the employee usually has an employment contract and assignment letter from the GEC, and then moves from their home to their host country.
GEC are usually based in countries that favor simplified management such as Switzerland or Singapore. They can either be managed directly by the in-house international mobility team or entrusted to a service provider.

Arkema’s GEC is specific to expatriates (i.e. all long-term assignments, regardless of social protection status).
It is based in Switzerland and is managed by an external provider, who is responsible for administrative and contractual management, payroll (and related re-invoicing) and the setup of social protection. The service provider also assists employees with their day-to-day needs throughout their expatriation.

Our international mobility team acts as a corporate interface between expatriates, managers and HR teams in the 2 countries concerned (home and host).

We take a direct role in setting up moves on departure and on return, to coordinate the service provider’s actions and to guarantee deployment in compliance with group policy: in some ways we act as custodians of the system!
 

In your opinion what are the advantages and the limitations of international mobility management for employees through a GEC?

The 2 main advantages in my opinion are to: 
•    guarantee a shared framework for the expatriate population in terms of social protection, taxation and compensation by centralizing expatriation contracts.
This framework allows for fairer treatment of our employees and limits the number of exceptions and disparities between countries that can negatively affect staff. 
•    build compensation packages from the home country.
In contrast to our local or local + policies, this way of working aligns with the company’s stated desire to develop talents through experience abroad while maintaining ties with the home country. This can also allow a better management of returns (the employee having remained under the home country compensation policy makes the return package simpler to manage).

As regards the limitations of managment via a GEC, I would say that the main challenge lies in properly explaining the whys and wherefores of the practice to employees concerned.
•    Certain points can indeed seem hard to understand or surprizing (changes to organization, currency, etc.), while setting up a GEC adds a 3rd stakeholder to international moves.
•    What is more, the employee ends up with a status that is rather different from that of their colleagues, being an employee in neither their host nor home country.
The role of our service is therefore to support staff on these issues in advance: the importance of education should not be underestimated here!
 

And for the company?

Centralization in the GEC allows the delegation of operational management to our provider. This model offers a robust structure and feeds the development of a centralized in-house hub of expertise, while allowing flexibility in the event of successive expatriations, including between countries that are not very compatible! I have some examples of setups that were firsts for Arkema, that the GEC allowed us to handle more easily, e.g. a Brazilian employee sent to Malaysia.
I am also thinking of the creation of a core international setup that simplifies our everyday work and helps us save time by limiting exceptions and the multiplication of different situations. This also allows us to concentrate on maintaining coordination between the international mobility service, our service provider and home and host country HR: our markets not managing international mobility independently amplifies the role of the corporate team in ensuring policy compliance (updates to and modernization of which are central concerns).
Education also appears to me to be vital for the company: as this management system is very centralized within the international mobility department, it is essential to have a communication and service mindset, to make these processes accessible and to save time on decision making for different internal stakeholders (HR, managers).

What are your team’s upcoming issues?

Other than education, as already mentioned, our challenges are:
•    improvement of career management monitoring for our expatriate population - who, paradoxically, are sometimes “forgotten” -, by working with existing talent management teams at corporate level (notably for managing returns).
•    integration of other international mobility statuses that do not use the GEC system in order to guarantee compliance with policy and equal treatment, while ensuring regional autonomy: in particular setting a framework for the development of short-term assignments - aiming to combine simplicity and compliance - or the emergence of international remote working.
•    lastly, an operational concern for building on our existing tools and simplifying coordination with our various points of contact, notably for decision making on individual cases (the exceptions, it’s always the exceptions…).

The Cercle Magellan is one of the means for us to move forward on this, by exchanging on best practices of companies that work in a similar way to us: management of taxation, benefits, running a network (of regional contacts, managers, expatriates themselves), etc. We have many topics of conversation ongoing and to come this year with Cercle Magellan members!