New Member Promotion >>> Save $15 and get a SHRM tote!
Giving applicants with criminal backgrounds a fair chance at employment can be good for business.
Plus all the HR resources you need to be more efficient and effective this fall!
Apply for the SHRM Certification Exam and begin advancing your career.
Learn how to make the business case for diversity, October 25-27.
The global economic downturn has taken a significant toll on multinational companies and their employees. Increased worker mental health and substance abuse problems lead to performance problems and, in the worst cases, increased workplace violence or suicide.
As HR professionals seek out solutions, the economy has forced many companies to cut back on the very programs and benefits that target mental health problems. The challenge is in identifying a global employee assistance program (EAP) model that can deliver much-needed resources to the workforce while demonstrating real value for the company.
The decision to purchase an EAP is complex. While the vast majority of medium and large employers in the U.S. have an EAP in place, there is broad disparity around the world about the acceptance of EAPs and whether to invest financial resources in providing them.
Some factors surrounding the decision to implement an EAP are external to employers but influence their decision-making directly. Economic forces and tax schemes can impact the richness and structure of benefits packages. In developing regions, compensation and benefits strategies focus on limiting personnel costs. Considering that EAPs are still new to many such locations, employers might not recognize an EAP as a worthwhile investment.
Moreover, in some economically developing regions, despite overall low labor costs EAP providers might charge a premium because of scarce professional resources. In such areas, EAPs might make up a larger relative percentage of total personnel costs.
In some cultures, workers might be less comfortable openly addressing personal problems or mental health concerns, particularly in the workplace. Approaches to recognizing and addressing mental illness might differ from Western norms. Therefore, acceptance of an EAP might be slow, and a formal delivery system for service might be underdeveloped.
In spite of these cultural dynamics, a growing body of research demonstrates the global prevalence of mental illness and its impact on productivity and health care costs. Simply put, these are issues that are common, drive costs for businesses, and are not being resolved solely within the health care systems. EAPs remain a cost-effective tool to help mitigate these risks.
Crafting a Global EAP
Generally, purchasers of global EAP products fall into two camps:
In theory, a single vendor model for global EAP is ideal in its promise of broad geographical coverage, ease of communication, centralized account management, and standard data reporting. The disagreement is over whether multinational EAP vendors can deliver a globally scaled program that meets multinational employers’ complex needs. There are doubts that a single vendor can manage complex contractual and legal issues across international lines, and skepticism that a single central vendor can have strong knowledge of local providers, approaches to mental health care and work cultures.
To counter those limitations, decentralized EAPs are organized around many local and regional agreements with those perceived as the best indigenous providers. However, those favoring a single global provider claim this “multi-local” approach is too cumbersome and difficult to manage by a central process owner. Multiple contracts across many vendors leave room for inconsistent and inefficient global programming. Communication and coordination of services when a multinational response is needed can create problems.
The debate boils down to knowledge and resources and the “build or buy” dilemma that many employers encounter routinely. Where HR has the time, budget, knowledge and volume of employees to essentially construct their own global network, the decentralized model has benefits. However, for those who are more resource constrained, relying on a vendor’s network and oversight might be the better path.
Regardless of the vendor model, there is broad consensus around critical EAP requirements, which include:
Reporting EAP Metrics
The performance of an EAP can be measured in many ways, and the reports coming from EAP vendors vary even more. Regardless of the model of EAP delivery, HR should require standard measures of program performance from country to country—perhaps even requiring reports that are written in a manner and language suitable for the local cultures.
Many EAP purchasers report dissatisfaction with their EAP utilization reports and the need to reformat them for internal use. Most often, EAP utilization reports are merely operational metrics, providing little value to the purchaser and offering little insight into the value or outcomes of the program. To remedy these shortcomings, EAP reports should:
The rapid shifts in the global economy and their impact on the workforce make a carefully crafted EAP more relevant than ever. HR needs to be a discriminating purchaser to help meet the demands of a complex global market that continues to evolve. For their part, EAP vendors need to deliver on promises of a quality product that offers well-measured value on a global scale.
Dr. John C. Pompe, SPHR, is the manager of behavioral health programs at Caterpillar Inc.
David A. Sharar, Ph.D., is the managing director at Chestnut Global Partners, a provider of EAP services.
Sign up for SHRM’s free
Compensation & Benefits e-newsletter
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
CA Resources at Your Fingertips
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies