How Can an Employer Incentivize Social Responsibility?

How Can an Employer Incentivize Social Responsibility?

At an all-company meeting last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company was retooling its employee bonus system to reflect a new set of priorities, focused on addressing the controversies surrounding the social media giant concerning the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation on its platform. In addition to traditional metrics like user growth and product quality, Facebook will reward employees this year based on their success at promoting the social good including combating fake accounts, protecting users’ safety, and making progress on other social issues affected by Facebook and the internet in general.

The decision to reward employees for doing social good reflects a challenge that many companies, particularly large corporations with major public profiles, are facing today. Investors, politicians, the media, and consumers are paying more attention than ever before to the social, environmental, and ethical consequences of what businesses do. And Facebook is not alone in this desire, for example, Chevron recently announced that it would tie executive compensation to reductions in the energy corporation’s greenhouse gas emissions. This dynamic, in turn, puts more pressure on corporate leaders to deliver sustainability and social responsibility as well as growth.

For Facebook, awarding bonuses to employees for meeting social responsibility goals will inevitably test the company’s ability to live up to two truisms: “actions speak louder than words,” and “what gets measured gets done.” To the first point, companies can articulate all the values they want, but at the end of the quarter or fiscal year, what matters is whether the organization actually lived up to those values in its day-to-day business practices. We’ve seen companies attempt to project an image of social responsibility, only to get called out for not really reflecting that image in their work. The impact of Facebook’s new policy will take time to fully materialize, but when it pays out bonuses for 2019, investors and reporters will be curious to see whether they have really rewarded the kind of choices they say they intend to, and whether those rewards reflect a real change.

As to the second point, Facebook has set itself an ambitious goal of identifying quantifiable metrics by which to determine progress against its goals of social good. Facebook has acknowledged that there is no easy or obvious formula for doing this, but they are looking at targets like number of fake accounts shut down daily or improvements to safety and security as possible metrics. Being a data-driven company, Facebook will likely get more granular and detailed about how it defines success, especially with both the media and governments paying closer and closer attention.

Here are four things that any company considering a similar change should be ready to do to make it more likely that an incentive program like this will be successful:

Read more

More US Employers Embrace Fertility Benefits as a Talent Attractor

More US Employers Embrace Fertility Benefits as a Talent Attractor

In today’s tight labor market, US employers are having to work harder to attract and retain talent, not just by offering more pay and benefits, but also by targeting their employee value proposition to fit the needs of their candidates and current employees. As millennials take on the burden of caring for their aging parents while starting families of their own, and as progressive organizations strive to make sure motherhood doesn’t derail the career of their women employees, many of the latest benefit trends are family-focused: paid parental leave, flexibility for working parents, returnship programs for parents returning from career breaks, and so forth.

Another increasingly popular family benefit is health insurance coverage for fertility treatments, to help employees who want to start families but struggle with infertility. In vitro fertilization, the most effective of these treatments, is increasingly common as women start families later, but is often prohibitively expensive, costing over $12,000 for just one round, whereas several rounds are sometimes required to result in a successful pregnancy.

Despite the cost, we’ve seen several large employers add fertility benefits to their rewards packages in the past year, including Cisco, Estée Lauder, and MassMutual. In a recent feature at the New York Times, Vanessa Grigoriadis takes a look at what’s driving this trend, pointing to a recent Mercer study that found the percentage of large employers (of 20,000 employees or more) had increased from 37 percent to 44 percent from 2017 to 2018:

These days, I.V.F. coverage is “escaping” the sectors that have traditionally offered it, meaning tech, banking and media, said Jake Anderson, a former partner at Sequoia Capital and a founder of Fertility IQ, a website that assesses doctors, procedures and clinics. General Mills, Chobani, the Cooper Companies and Designer Shoe Warehouse have either introduced coverage or greatly increased dollar amounts for 2019. Procter & Gamble Company offered only $5,000 in fertility benefits until this year, when it increased the benefit to $40,000.

Many organizations are falling short, however, when it comes to communicating this benefit to employees and job seekers, Grigoriadis points out:

Read more

Workers With HDHPs Spend Less on Health Care—Is That a Good Thing?

Workers With HDHPs Spend Less on Health Care—Is That a Good Thing?

High-deductible health plans have become an increasingly popular means for employers to keep health care costs under control. According to data released last summer by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2007 through 2017, the percentage of adults 18-64 with employer-provided health insurance who were enrolled in an HDHP with a health savings account increased from 4.2 percent to 18.9 percent, while the percentage enrolled in an HDHP without an HSA rose from 10.6 percent to 24.5 percent.

Over the past three years, however, our benefits research at Gartner shows that their popularity has been leveling off, as deductibles for individual plans have actually been trending downward. (Gartner Total Rewards Leadership Council clients can view our full report on medical plan trends and observations for 2018 here.) This trend suggests that employers are having second thoughts about whether the benefits of HDHPs outweigh the downsides.

A new survey published last month by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and research firm Greenwald & Associates provides some insight into these pros and cons. The survey found that people enrolled in HDHPs were more likely to compare cost and quality when selecting non-emergency health care and to make cost-conscious decisions like choosing generic prescription drugs over brand names. HDHP enrollees also more likely to be offered and to participate in wellness programs through their employers, including programs that involve biometric screenings.

On the other hand, this cost-conscious behavior may not be entirely voluntary: 30 percent of HDHP enrollees said they delayed care in the previous year because of costs, compared to 18 percent of respondents covered by traditional health insurance plans. While the EBRI study does not clarify whether this care was essential or non-essential, another recent study of diabetics found that switching to a high-deductible plan increased their likelihood of delaying essential care.

Read more

Harvard Study: 3 in 4 US Workers Say Caregiving Responsibilities Affect Their Productivity

Harvard Study: 3 in 4 US Workers Say Caregiving Responsibilities Affect Their Productivity

In recent years, business leaders have become increasingly aware of the caregiving burdens affecting their employees’ lives and, by extension, their organizations. At the same time millennials, who make up the largest generational cohort in the workforce, are settling down and starting families, the baby boomer generation is aging and imposing additional elder care responsibilities on their gen-X and millennial children. In recognition of this burden, many progressive organizations have expanded their leave and flexibility offerings for employees with family caregiving responsibilities, but not all employees enjoy these benefits, particularly in the US, where there is no statutory parental leave entitlement.

A major new report from Harvard Business School underscores the significant toll this caregiving burden places on employees’ productivity, which employers may be underestimating. In their report, The Caring Company, Harvard Business School professor Joseph Fuller and Manjari Raman, program director of the school’s Young American Leaders Program, surveyed 1,500 employees and 300 HR leaders to gauge the impact of caregiving responsibilities on workers’ performance, the extent to which employers recognize this effect, the benefits employers are offering to help employees manage these obligations, and how these benefits are being used.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • 80 percent of employees with caregiving responsibilities said caregiving affected their productivity, but only 24 percent of employers thought caregiving influenced performance, and 52 percent of employers don’t measure the extent of their employees’ caregiving burdens. Employers recognize, however, that work issues such as unplanned absences, late arrivals and early departures from work — which often arise as a result of caregiving obligations — negatively affect employees’ career progression.
  • 32 percent of all employees said they had voluntarily left a job during their career due to caregiving responsibilities. The impact is particularly acute among millennial employees: 50 percent of employees aged 26-35 and 27 percent of employees aged 18-25 said they had already left a job due to caregiving responsibilities.
  • Among those who had left a job, 57 percent said they had done so to take care of a newborn or adopted child, 49 percent to care for a sick child, 43 percent to manage a child’s needs, 32 percent to take care of an elder family member, and nearly 25 percent left to take care of an ill or disabled family member. The most common reasons they gave for leaving their jobs were that they could not find or afford paid help, or because they were unable to meet their work responsibilities and provide care at the same time.

Read more

Are American Millennials Rich or Poor? Either Way, They Want Help Getting Out of Debt

Are American Millennials Rich or Poor? Either Way, They Want Help Getting Out of Debt

Millennials now make up the largest age cohort in the US workforce, so employers have an interest in understanding the needs, preferences, and concerns of this generation in order to effectively attract, retain, and develop millennial talent. A common belief about millennials is that their consumption patterns and lifestyle choices are markedly different from those of previous generations: living with their parents longer, getting married later or not at all, and buying homes and automobiles at lower rates. A stereotypical view that has thus emerged of millennials is that they are simply choosing not to do the things their older peers expected them to do in their early careers. The growing consensus among observers of the economic data, however, is that the main reason millennials aren’t behaving like their baby boomer and gen-X predecessors is that they are not as well-off as these generations were at the same point in their lives, thanks in large part to having come into the workforce during and after the Great Recession of 2007-2009.

In the past few weeks, two studies have come out that complicate both of these narratives about millennials, but conflict in how they depict this generation’s financial health. The first is a working paper by Federal Reserve Board economists Christopher Kurz, Geng Li, and Daniel J. Vine, titled “Are Millennials Different?” Yes and no, the economists conclude:

Relative to members of earlier generations, millennials are more racially diverse, more educated, and more likely to have deferred marriage; these comparisons are continuations of longer-run trends in the population. Millennials are less well off than members of earlier generations when they were young, with lower earnings, fewer assets, and less wealth. For debt, millennials hold levels similar to those of Generation X and more than those of the baby boomers. Conditional on their age and other factors, millennials do not appear to have preferences for consumption that differ significantly from those of earlier generations. (Emphasis ours.)

In other words, the paper debunks the idea that millennials are buying fewer houses and new cars because they want to live lower-consumption lifestyles, and instead supports the view that they just haven’t accumulated the wealth to afford these big purchases. On the other hand, economist Alison Schrager argues at Quartz that the Fed data can also be read a different way, and that millennials “are in fine shape, maybe even richer than previous generations, but they have just chosen to invest in different assets”—i.e., higher education:

Read more

The Talent Ramifications of the Brexit Deal (or No Deal)

The Talent Ramifications of the Brexit Deal (or No Deal)

The UK’s planned exit from the European Union is fast approaching, and a new deal over the terms of that exit faces an uncertain future in the UK parliament. Whatever happens, there will be talent implications for employers and HR leaders in the UK and Europe. Below is our broad look at the background of the process and terms of the latest proposed deal, and what the potential consequences could be — viewing several key issues through the lens of HR, including immigration, employment law, and the risks of a no-deal Brexit.

Fast Facts

  • The UK will formally exit the European Union on March 29, 2019, marking the deadline for UK and EU negotiators to reach a deal on an orderly Brexit transition. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has reached a draft agreement with the EU that would provide for a 21-month transition period, after which the UK would be able to control immigration from the EU, while backstop measures would allow the UK to remain in the EU customs union and enable a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if a final trade deal is not reached by December 2020. The transition period could be extended once, into 2022, if the UK and EU agree to do so.
  • A scheduled Parliament vote on the deal with the EU was delayed on December 10 after the May government realized the agreement would most likely be rejected. May then survived a confidence vote two days later, and plans to continue lobbying for the deal, which will not be scheduled for another vote in Parliament until sometime in January.
  • May’s deal, as drafted, would preserve the free movement of labor between the UK and other EU countries for the duration of the transition period, while any EU citizens living in the UK before the end of that period would have a right to stay, but would have to apply for residency documentation. Afterward, EU citizens would no longer have special privileges in immigrating to the UK. May has proposed a skills-based system for admitting immigrants after Brexit, but some business leaders and the National Health Service fear this system will leave them short-staffed in roles that would not qualify as high-skill under May’s scheme but for which native talent is in short supply.
  • The UK government has pledged to uphold employment laws based on EU regulations after Brexit, but some of these laws may be partly amended to be more flexible for employers or to reduce their liabilities. Unions, however, fear that these protections may be weakened substantially.
  • If there is no deal by the March 29 deadline, the UK will face a “messy” exit from the EU—likely causing severe economic disruptions. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would revert to trading with Europe under World Trade Organization guidelines, reintroducing customs and border controls. A no-deal Brexit can be expected to hurt the pound and cause instability in the British financial sector, which could spread to continental Europe and the rest of the world.
  • In a no-deal scenario, the government has promised that EU citizens’ immigration status would not change before 2021, but it remains unclear what employers will have to do to ensure that their European employees are able to continue living and working in the UK. Many businesses have put contingency plans into action to protect against the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, but most HR managers in the UK are underprepared for this scenario. In any case, Brexit is expected to result in a labor supply shock and make it more challenging for UK employers to fill job vacancies.

Background

On June 23, 2016, citizens of the UK narrowly voted to withdraw their country from the European Union. The “Brexit” referendum sent a shockwave through the British, European, and global economies, and prompted concern and uncertainty at many organizations in the UK and abroad.

Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, who came to power shortly after the referendum in 2016, has worked to cut a deal with Brussels that preserves the UK’s strong trade ties with the EU, but has also stressed that no deal is better than a bad deal as far as her government is concerned. UK and EU negotiators deadlocked over several key points where London and Brussels are at cross-purposes, and uncertainty over whether and how these obstacles will be overcome has been a major source of anxiety for UK businesses over the past two years.

Chief among these issues are immigration and the free movement of people between the UK and the rest of the EU. May has stressed the need for the UK to “take back control” of its borders, even if it meant losing access to the EU’s single market. Free movement of people is one of the “four freedoms” underpinning that single market; the UK wants to preserve free movement of goods, services, and capital, while regaining the right to restrict immigration from the EU. For its part, Brussels has resisted creating new forms of special treatment for the UK that would make Brexit easier, partly to discourage other EU countries from pursuing exits of their own. Another, related area of disagreement is the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which forms the UK’s only land border with another EU country. Many businesses on the island of Ireland have supply chains that cross that border every day and employees living on both sides of it; creating a hard border with customs and immigration controls would be costly and complicated for these organizations.

The deadline for reaching an agreement is March 29, 2019. If no agreement is reached, the UK will “crash out” of the EU and trade with the bloc under World Trade Organization guidelines. May announced on November 25 that her Brexit negotiators and their counterparts in Brussels had reached a draft agreement that would solve some of these challenges.

A vote on the deal in the UK Parliament had been scheduled for December 11, but May called it off one day before when it was clear that the deal was going to be rejected. Many MPs opposed the agreement, claiming the proposed Brexit is too hard or not hard enough, or because they believe the country should hold another referendum on the question before proceeding.

Prime Minister May said on December 10 that she would ask the EU for new “reassurances” on the deal, and in particular the backstop plan for the Northern Ireland border, which many MPs said they opposed. The EU has maintained they will not renegotiate the agreement, however. May’s government offered no specific timeline as to when there would be another scheduled vote in Parliament on this or any revised deal — but has said it will not happen until January. There is also a January 21 deadline to present the deal to Parliament. May survived a confidence v

Here is a broad outline of what might happen next and the key issues HR leaders need to understand:

Read more

For Retailers, Attracting Holiday Staff Means More than Just Raising Pay

For Retailers, Attracting Holiday Staff Means More than Just Raising Pay

Facing one of the tightest labor markets in living memory, US retailers and other companies staffing up for the holiday season have had to get creative about finding and attracting the extra workers they need for the seasonal rush. Some retail chains started hiring for the winter holidays all the way back in the early summer, raised entry-level wages for store employees, and offered a variety of bonuses and perks like store discounts.

The retail sector was already feeling pressure to bump up pay, the Star-Tribune reported this week, citing a survey by the hiring platform Snag that found retailers expected wages to rise by 54 percent this year. That’s partly a product of a labor shortage, but also reflects the growth of online shopping:

As more shoppers order online and opt to have items shipped to the store or their front door, retailers’ backroom operations are changing. Mass merchants still need cashiers, salespeople and shelf stockers. But they need more people to package orders for store pickup and to work in warehouses and distribution centers, which increasingly requires more technology skills.

Target is doubling the number of staff it needs to handle digital orders. Macy’s, which is hiring about the same number as last year, will shift its mix and add 5,500 more people for its fulfillment centers. Best Buy says it, too, will bulk up on workers to package up online orders.

Labor market competition, the need to attract and retain more skilled employees, and “HR-as-PR” considerations are all coming to bear on retailers’ decisions to raise pay for their hourly employees. They are also courting hires with new benefits, including intangible benefits like flexibility, Steve Bates notes at SHRM:

Read more