This article is part of a recurring series highlighting recent talent mobility industry reports. If you would like the WERC editorial team to consider covering a specific industry report, email mobility@talenteverywhere.org.
Organizations with assignees in the Middle East are largely opting for flexibility over mandates as they respond to ongoing regional tensions, according to a new pulse survey from AIRINC.
The survey found that 82% of responding companies have international assignees in affected Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) locations, yet evacuation strategies vary widely. Rather than requiring departures, most employers are offering voluntary evacuation options—44% for assignees and 43% for dependents—while 35% report no evacuations at all.
Where evacuations are occurring, they are concentrated in the United Arab Emirates, followed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Most employees are relocating to their home country (84%) or another company-approved location (35%).
Approaches to danger pay remain cautious. Only a small percentage of organizations are currently offering premiums, though roughly 20%-30% are considering them in higher-risk locations such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Even among those that do offer danger pay, there is little consistency in structure or amount, with many companies still determining appropriate levels.
Beyond compensation, companies are leaning heavily on cross-functional coordination and contingency planning. Many report working closely with security, HR, and travel teams to monitor conditions, maintain communication with employees, and prepare for potential tax, immigration, and compliance implications tied to relocations.
Flexible support measures—such as temporary relocation, remote work from neighboring countries, and expanded travel assistance—are emerging as common tools. At the same time, some organizations continue to keep business-critical assignees in place, underscoring the operational balancing act many mobility teams are managing.
The findings reflect that companies are avoiding one-size-fits-all responses and instead managing mobility risk on a case-by-case basis as conditions evolve.