Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

How car schemes can fail to meet business objectives

by
20th May 2005
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Company car expenditure is often a major cost to a business and an area where finance and HR need to work closely.

Paul Roberts, Associate Director of Momentum Consultancy Services (part of Lex Vehicle Leasing) sets out how HR should be viewing company car benefits and thus illustrates the employee reward agenda for senior finance decision-makers.

Car-related expenditure typically represents 20%-25% of total household income, which explains why employees like the option of company car provision so much (it can be more tax-efficient than giving cash), and thus why the business and HR needs to get it right as a key component of employee reward.

However, far too many car schemes don't truly meet the needs of an organisation. A contentious statement perhaps, but this is true for many companies.

The overall company car market - including benefit schemes that resemble company car plans but actually circumvent benefit-in-kind legislation - is very buoyant, contrary to the belief of some individuals in industry.

The scope for employees to determine their tax rate via their car choice (company policy permitting), and employer concerns over employee risk whilst driving on business are two of the main reasons why this benefit is so popular.

Of course, in addition, there is no way of getting away from the fact that cars are an important benefit from an employee angle.

Company car schemes, however financed and managed, are clearly shaped and influenced by a range of stakeholders within an organisation.

HR, finance, procurement and core operations will all typically get involved in decisions over policy, providers, financing options and administration. In many businesses, the MD or CEO will input as well.

In addition, organisations will often seek the help of an external tax adviser to supplement their thinking and, in some cases, advisers take centre stage in scheme design (particularly for those schemes that optimise tax legislation such as structured employee car ownership plans).

The combination of those internal and external decision makers used is determined by factors as diverse as the job need versus status vehicle mix, personal interests in the car scheme, historical "ownership" of the car policy, and the level of knowledge possessed by individuals over company car opportunities and issues.

In practice the resulting car scheme is often out of line with what the business really needs. This is a major issue, considering that company cars are often the most important benefit from an employee's perspective and one of the highest benefit costs.

Policy
For the purposes of this article, we'll focus on the aspect of car scheme provision closest to HR - the car policy.

Compensation & Benefit directors talk about reward strategies and benefit principles yet all too often the car policy is out of line with such objectives. This is typically because the policy is out-of-date and hasn't been looked at with a fresh set of eyes recently - the policy may hark back to the time it was developed several years ago before organisations invested in developing clear benefit strategies.

The other main reason why car policies are often not aligned to benefit strategies is that car policy is either too heavily influenced, or indeed "owned", by a function other than HR. This may mean finance or procurement aiming to reduce costs by making the policy inflexible.

When a car benefit is being provided it seems odd to have those managing employee remuneration - the HR function - not managing this area.

Most HR directors focus on areas such as reward flexibility, competitiveness, and employee engagement to shape their respective benefits strategy. Let's take a brief look at these areas in respect of car policy - areas that need to be examined in many large companies to ensure that the car scheme delivers value.

Benefit flexibility
Many companies operate car policies which are inflexible and restrict choice. Whilst they may offer a cash alternative to car, many severely limit trading-up and trading-down options and restrict manufacturer choice or model types.

In a world where employees have very differing needs to one another, thanks to age, lifestyle and personal situation, such a restrictive approach is clearly out of line with organisations' claims to be flexible to staff.

Yes, the company often states a number of reasons, related to operations or image, why their car policy is rigid but such concerns can normally be overcome through careful design of the policy to better align with benefits strategy.

Indeed, more and more organisations are integrating car provision to formal flexible benefit programmes where employees can flex between cars and other benefits such as healthcare and pensions.

Benefit competitiveness
Car entitlement and allocation tends to get reviewed once every few years. Typically, organisations shy away from making policy changes based directly on external comparison and instead increase car rental amounts to ensure employees can obtain the same type of car as in the past.

This is often the result of inadequate benchmarking data that doesn't provide the confidence to set car provision policy at, for instance, the median or upper-quartile against the market - the two positions that most HR functions seem to state they follow with regards to benefit provision.

Few policies are robustly assessed in the context of total reward. For instance, many companies are unaware what percentage of total remuneration the car makes up and thus have little ability to manage the respective benefit elements to produce a desired total cost outcome.

Employee engagement and communication
The need to understand employees' views on their rewards - both financial and non-financial - has never been greater. However, the vast majority of companies do not explore the large range of reward possibilities that the car scheme provides.

This is ironic given that cars are probably the most emotive and certainly the most tangible benefit an employee receives. When was the last time your business ran a focus group or conducted a survey with employees to explore their likes and dislikes with the scheme?

Would you say the need to understand their views is important given expenditure in this area?

Benefit communication is commonly the number one priority for compensation professionals - employees just do not fully value their benefit packages although the move to total reward and benefit statements is helping.

So often car schemes have a poor reputation. For instance, job-need users (and often HR) don't view job-need cars as a benefit (as well as a job tool) even though employees use the vehicle outside of work; this undoubtedly affects the required benefit communication approach.

All of the additional benefits a company car driver receives such as insurance, breakdown cover, servicing and relief vehicles are often not communicated as benefits.

Average car and car-related benefit costs are £4,000-£6,000 a year per employee, which positions this area at the top-end of benefit expenditure; the need to achieve high ROI is clear.

A wealth of opportunities exist for finance and HR to re-shape the company car scheme in their organisation and for both functions to achieve their objectives in respect of costs and effective benefit provision.

PAUL ROBERTS
[email protected]

An earlier version of this article appeared in HRZone.

Related links

  • AccountingWEB's Company Car Zone
  • Tags:

    Replies (0)

    Please login or register to join the discussion.

    There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.