global life sciences and chemicals report 2013

global life sciences &chemicals sector report 2013

randstad award

2

contents

introduction 3

priorities in choosing an employer 5

work atmosphere and job content 8

factors in employee retention and turnover 11

attractiveness of the life sciences &

chemicals sector 14

sector attractiveness 17

3

introduction

A strong employer brand image raises your visibility in the job market and makes you stand out from the competition, helping you to recruit highly skilled and promising new employees. It also encourages existing employees to identify with your company, enhancing their motivation, engagement – and productivity. In order to strengthen your employer brand, however, you need to have insight into how your organization and your sector are perceived by potential employees and the public at large. In addition, you need to understand the general prefer-ences and priorities of job-seekers in your sector and country.

The Randstad Award was created to provide employers with precisely these kinds of insights. Started in Belgium in 2000, the Randstad Award has grown into the world’s largest

survey into employer branding. In each of the 18 participating countries across Europe, Asia/Pacific and the Americas, a representative sample of 7,000 employees and job seekers between the ages of 18 and 65 are asked about their percep-tions of their country’s 150 largest companies.1 The respondents are asked to identify the companies they recognize, and then to indicate whether or not they would like to work for them. They then evaluate the relative attrac-tiveness of each of the selected companies and sectors based on 10 key factors, including financial health, long-term job security, good work/life balance, and interesting job content. Unlike similar surveys, HR officers, staff members or experts are not invited to take part, which guarantees maximum independence and objectivity.

The survey makes a clear distinction between ‘absolute attractiveness’ and ‘relative attractiveness’. A smaller, lesser-known company may actually be a more appealing potential employer than a larger, well-known company – but based on absolute attrac-tiveness, the high-profile organi-zation would rank better in the ratings due to greater public awareness. To make sure that a small company’s ranking is not impacted adversely by its brand awareness, the Randstad Award distinguishes between absolute attractiveness (among all respondents) and relative attrac-tiveness (among respondents who know the company). By applying this methodology uniformly across all countries, we are able to draw useful comparisons between companies, sectors and countries.

1 Participating countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Spain, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Singapore UK and US.

A company’s success hinges on the quality of its employees, and in today’s highly competitive job market, employer branding is a crucial tool for attracting and retaining the right kind of talent

4

This global sector report contains the main results for the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector across all surveyed countries. The main results across all sectors per country, including the Randstad Award winner for each country, can be found in

the publically available general report. Company reports, which detail the strengths and weaknesses of individual companies and provide an excellent industry benchmark, are also available on a confi-dential basis. Together, these

reports convey vital information on employer branding and job seeker preferences that can help employers worldwide to strengthen their employer brand image and attract and retain the people they want.

the sample

All respondents:

Respondents currently working in the Life Sciences & Chemicals Sector:

5

priorities in choosing an employer

‘flexible working’ were also cited by 35% and 30% of respondents, despite each being named as first priority by only 4%. This indicates that while employers need to offer financial benefits and job security as a first priority, ‘soft’ or non-financial benefits are nonetheless of high secondary importance and can therefore play an important role in attracting potential employees.

At the bottom end of the spectrum, most respondents did not consider value-related factors such as ‘strong image/strong values’, ‘diversity

It is significant that the top three factors, representing 49% of respondents, are orientated around financial and job security. The factors in positions #4 to #6, on the other hand, were those centered on quality of life and job satisfaction: ‘pleasant working atmosphere’ (9%),‘interesting job content’ (8%), and ‘good work-life balance’ (7%). The other 28% of respondents were split between the remaining 11 factors.

When respondents were permitted to name their top 5 factors, however, ‘competitive salary & employee benefits’ (59%) actually edged out job security as the most often selected factor (58%). ‘Pleasant working atmosphere’ (54%) took the #3 spot – despite having been selected as the single most important factor by only 9%. While the first priority of few, this factor is nonetheless a very high priority for a majority of respondents.

‘Good work-life balance’ (41%) and ‘career progression oppor-tunities’ (40%) took positions #4 and #5, while the factors that held those positions in 2012, ‘financially healthy’ (39%) and ‘interesting job content’ (37%), slipped down the list to #6 and #7. ‘Conveniently located’ and

management’, or ‘concerned with environment and society’ to be important factors in selecting an employer. Only 4% of respondents identified any of these factors as their top priority, and less than 15% of respon-dents included any of them in the 5 most important factors. Perhaps surprisingly, ‘interna-tional/global career opportu-nities’ was the top priority of just 1%, and featured in the top 5 of just 10%, suggesting the vast majority of potential employees are not strongly interested in pursuing international careers. ‘Uses latest technologies’ was similarly irrelevant to more than 90% of respondents.

Priorities in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sectorOn the whole, the priorities of respondents currently working in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector were very similar to the general global results, though it was ‘competitive salary &

When asked to identify the single most important factor in choosing to work for a specific company, the most popular choice was ‘job security’ (19%), followed by ‘competitive salary & employee benefits’ (17%) and ‘financially healthy’ (13%)

6

pronounced in this sector. This indicates that men and women in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector are more unified than those in many other sectors on the factors of greatest importance.

Findings by agePerhaps unsurprisingly, respondents under the age of 40 in the global sample are most likely to select such ‘future-orientated’ factors as career progression, international career opportunities and training as important factors. Older respondents, on the other hand, are more concerned than younger ones with financial health, job security, the quality of products/service, and diversity management.

Older workers in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector also prioritize job security, financial health, and competitive salaries & benefits, but they are also more concerned with a good work-life balance, quality products & services and strong image/strong values than both their younger colleagues in Life Sciences & Chemicals and the over-40s from the general sample. Younger Life Sciences & Chemicals employees echo the general youth preference for good training and career progression opportunities, though the bias towards young people on international career opportunities is considerably less in this sector. In a reverse of the general trend, however, it is younger Life Sciences & Chemicals employees rather than older ones who are marginally more concerned with a pleasant working atmosphere and interesting job content.

employee benefits’ (20%) rather than ‘long-term job security’ (18%) that took the #1 position. On all other factors, however, the Life Sciences & Chemicals responses did not differ from the general sample by more than 1%, although this sector did prioritize (by a slim margin) career progression over work-life balance.

When permitted to select the 5 most important factors, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sample results were again very similar to the main sample. The most often included factor was again ‘competitive salary & employee benefits’ – and with 64% citing this factor, the consensus on it was even stronger than in the general sample (where it got 59% agreement). ‘Long-term job security’ (59%) was again the next most popular, followed once more by ‘pleasant working atmosphere’, though the latter enjoyed only 50% agreement as opposed to 54% in the general sample. When asked for their single top priority in choosing an employer, Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents again chose career progression oppor-tunities (45%) more often than the general sample (40%), putting it above a good work-life balance (41%). They were also slightly less likely to cite inter-esting job content, convenient location or flexible working than general respondents, and prior-itized the use of the latest technology (11%) over diversity manage-ment (7%), the least often cited factor.

Findings by genderWhen we break down the results by gender, we see a number of interesting patterns. Globally,

both men and women appreciate job security, compet-itive salary & benefits and inter-esting job content to approxi-mately the same degree. More men than women, however, are interested in career growth prospects, including good training and international career opportunities (although the latter is a high priority for just 9% of respondents, almost 20% more of them are men than women).

Similarly, men express a stronger preference for financially healthy organizations and place higher value on strong management, strong values and quality products/service. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to prioritize a good work atmosphere, and – likely in response to the fact that parenting responsibilities continued to fall more heavily on women – are more concerned than men with a good work-life balance, flexible working arrangements and a convenient location that cuts down on commuting.

In the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, the same gender biases were evident, but much less pronounced on the whole. Men were still slightly more likely to cite career progression and international opportunities, financial health, strong management and quality products/services, and women a pleasant and flexible working atmosphere, but to a lesser extent than in the general sample. Only on ‘convenient location’ (13% more women) and ‘use of latest technology’ (a very considerable 30% more men) were gender biases more

7

Findings by educational levelIn the general sample, people with a lower educational level more often look for job security, financial health, a good work atmosphere, a convenient location and flexible working, whereas people with a higher degree are more attracted by interesting job content, strong management, strong values, and good career growth prospects (including internationally). Both low- and high-educated respondents, however, appreciate a competitive salary, good training and quality products/services roughly equally.

These same trends are also visible in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, where lower-educated respondents are even more concerned with job security, a pleasant work atmosphere, financial health and a convenient location than in the general sample. The bias towards higher-educated respondents, meanwhile, was still present but slightly weaker on career progression opportu-nities, international career opportunities, strong image/strong values. Higher-educated Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents were also 7% more likely to prioritize use of latest technology than their lower-educated colleagues. However, it was lower-educated respondents, rather than higher-educated ones, who cared slightly more about salary and benefits.

Life Sciences and Chemicals sector conclusions on priorities in choosing an employerThe wide spread of responses underscores the fact that potential employees remain

individuals, with often very diverse motivations, ambitions and priorities. Nonetheless, some clear trends can be observed. Unsurprisingly in the current uncertain economic climate, economic concerns continue to be at the forefront of people’s minds. Competitive salary & benefits is the top priority of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, followed by job security. In attracting and retaining quality talent, therefore, Life Sciences & Chemicals employers would be wise to foreground financial rewards and benefits, as well as making a convincing case for the financial health of their organi-zation and the job security they can offer. Career progression opportunities are also important in this sector, especially for younger and higher-educated workers.

But while economic concerns are most often regarded as absolute number one priorities, there is also a very high degree of consensus on the importance of ‘soft’ or non-financial benefits such as ‘pleasant working atmosphere’, ‘work-life balance’, ‘convenient location’ and ‘interesting job content’. The former is particularly

essential, ranking in the top 5 most important factors for the majority of both Life Sciences & Chemicals and general respondents. Career progression opportunities are also important in this sector, especially for younger and higher-educated workers. Strong and effective promotion of an organization’s positive working environment and opportunities for career progression may therefore make a real difference in swaying a potential employee in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector.

The current buzz around corporate values and social responsibility does not appear to resonate with potential employees; Life Sciences & Chemicals workers are even less concerned than most with issues such as diversity management. The Life Sciences & Chemicals sector appears to place a slightly higher value on the use of innovative technologies and the prospect of international career opportunities than the general sample, but these are still relatively low priorities. This suggests that pragmatic employers would likely be more successful emphasizing other factors in their recruiting efforts.

8

work atmosphere and job content

What factors define a pleasant working environment?According to the global results, a pleasant working environment is primarily linked to recognition for good work (51%), feeling part of a team (51%), having open and honest communica-tion (50%), and enjoying the respect of colleagues (50%). The next most often cited factors were a sense of commitment shared by everyone (30%) and fun and laughter at work (27%). Having friends at work, social-izing with colleagues, and cele-brating the success of the company were less popular responses.

Women were more likely than men to cite recognition, the team aspect, and fun and laughter at work, while men mentioned respect from colleagues, having friends at work, connecting with colleagues socially and cele-brating the company’s success more often than women. Young people (18-24) were the most likely age group to cite respect from colleagues and fun, friends and socializing at work, but older workers (45-65) domi-nated when it came to recogni-tion, feeling part of a team, open communication, shared commitment and celebrating the company’s success. Higher-educated respondents and managers were more likely than others to link a pleasant atmos-phere to the shared commit-ment of all colleagues, while lower-educated and production-level workers linked it to respect from colleagues and fun and laughter at work.

Life Sciences & Chemicals sectorThe same four factors that were most important to the general sample were also most often linked to a good working atmos-phere by Life Sciences & Chemi-cals respondents, although the latter ordered them slightly differently. Open and honest communication and respect from colleagues placed first with 52% agreement, followed by recognition for good work (48%) and feeling part of a team (47%). In other capacities, Life Sciences & Chemicals respond-ents largely agreed with general respondents on what makes for a pleasant work atmosphere.

In terms of biases, however, there were some differences. There was less gender bias: men and women cited respect from colleagues, feeling part of a team, and connecting with colleagues socially, in roughly equal numbers. In addition, while women in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector still domi-

nated when it came to recogni-tion for good work, they were also more likely than men to value having friends at work, and less likely than men to cite fun and laughter at work or a sense of commitment shared by everyone. The sector results by age group were fairly consistent with the general results, although it was 25-44-year-olds rather than 18-24-year-olds who most often cited respect from colleagues, and all age groups cited recognition for good work equally.

In terms of job and educational level, lower-educated workers in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector were more likely than higher-educated workers – and than lower-educated workers in other sectors – to cite respect from colleagues, feeling part of a team and celebrating the company’s success, while there was a bias towards higher-educated workers among those citing recognition for good work. In addition, in this sector, office workers, rather than

9

sample when it comes to what they value in job content. Making good use of skills was again the clear winner (53%), and there was equal agreement on valuing of ideas (36%) and the acquisition of new skills (36%) for second place, though both had slightly lower agree-ment than in the general sample (38% and 39% respectively). Independence (29%) also ranked slightly lower in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, while developing functional skills (31%) ranked slightly higher than in the general sample (32% and 28% respec-tively). Opportunities to meet other professionals (14%) and supervisory responsibilities (14%) were still at the bottom of the ranking, but they scored several percentage points higher than in the general sample.

In terms of bias, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector differed from the global results in that it was women, not men, who

productions workers, most often mentioned feeling part of a team. In all other respects, the results concurred with the general sample.

What factors define interesting job content?Globally, clearly the most impor-tant factor in defining inter-esting job content is that the job makes good use of the employ-ee’s skills (51%). Next came the acquisition of new skills (39%) and the valuing of ideas (36%), followed by independence (32%), possibilities to develop functional skills (28%), variation in the job (25%), the encour-aging of creativity (25%) and a challenging nature (21%). Sharing knowledge with colleagues, opportunities to meet other professionals, and supervisory requirements were less popular choices.

Women were more likely than men to nominate acquisition of new skills, independence, varia-tion and a sense of challenge, while there was a slight bias towards men on the job making good use of one’s skills, the valuing of ideas, the encour-aging of creativity, and opportu-nities to supervise or connect with colleagues or other profes-sionals. Young people were those most likely to care about acquiring new skills, meeting other professionals, and having their ideas valued and their crea-tivity encouraged. Older workers aged 45-65, on the other hand, dominated when it came to wanting independence, variation, to use their skills and to share knowledge with colleagues.

In terms of education and job level, lower-educated respond-ents named independence, vari-ation and knowledge-sharing with colleagues more often than higher-educated respondents, who in turn were more likely to nominate creativity, challenge, possibilities to develop func-tional skills, and opportunities to meet other professionals. Production workers were most likely to want challenge and variation and to share knowl-edge with colleagues, while managers tended to seek jobs that make good use of their skills, value ideas and creativity, and offer supervisory responsi-bilities or opportunities to meet other professionals. For their part, office workers predomi-nated amongst those valuing independence and functional skill development.

Life Sciences & Chemicals sectorOnce again, Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents are fairly well aligned with the general

10

most valued opportunities to meet other professionals, and it was the 18-24 age group, not the 45-65 age group, that most values variation in the job, possi-bilities to develop functional skills, and sharing knowledge with colleagues. Once again, the youngest group of workers was the most likely to appreciate the acquisition of new skills, the valuing of ideas, and opportu-nities to meet other profes-sionals, while the oldest workers most valued independence and a good skills match.

In terms of educational and job level, higher-educated workers in Life Sciences & Chemicals were still the more likely to cite possibilities to develop functional skills, the encour-agement of creativity, challenge in their current role, and oppor-tunities to meet other profes-sionals, while lower-educated workers predominated among those valuing independence, variation, acquisition of new skills, valuing of ideas, and sharing knowledge with clients. Production workers were most likely to cite not just variation in the job, but also the valuing of ideas (in contrast with the general sample, where this factor was most often mentioned by managers). In another deviation from the global results, Life Sciences & Chemicals managers were those most likely to cite sharing knowledge with colleagues and the possibility to develop new functional skills. Office workers, meanwhile, valued acquisition of new skills in addition to independence, and all three job grades were equally repre-sented when it came to appreci-ating challenge in a current role.

Life Sciences & Chemicals conclusions on work atmosphere and job contentIn both the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector and the broader world of work, a pleasant work atmosphere is crucial to attracting and retaining key talent. Frustrat-ingly for employers, however, the key factors that define a pleasant work atmosphere are often largely determined by the conduct, personality and chemistry of the individuals involved. Nonetheless, Life Sciences & Chemicals employers can take active steps to encourage a pleasant work atmosphere – and to commu-nicate these steps to potential and current employees.

According to Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents, open and honest communication, enjoying the respect of colleagues, and feeling part of a team are the top factors in a pleasant work environment. In this respect, management and communications staff can play a highly influential role in setting the tone for an open and respectful environment from the top down. Recognition for good work, feeling part of a team, and sharing a common sense of commitment are also very important in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, and so employers should think carefully about how they can cultivate a system that effec-tively balances individual recog-nition and reward with a strong and unified team spirit. Meanwhile, activities to increase fun, laughter and socializing at work will go far with younger employees.

When it comes to defining inter-esting job content, Life Sciences & Chemicals workers identify quite a wide range of contributing factors, but the key thing is that the job makes good use of the employee’s skills. This is, of course, mostly a matter of having the right candidate in the right job – and in this sense, the results reaffirm the vital importance of accurate skills matching at the point of recruiting. For Life Sciences & Chemicals workers, the fact that the employee’s ideas are valued in their job is also very important, especially to younger employees and production workers, so employers would do well to emphasize the ways in which their employees can have input into the way things are done. The acquisition of new skills (whether general or functional) is another key factor for all groups, especially women and younger workers, and employers should therefore emphasize the learning and development opportu-nities they offer in a manner appro-priate to the potential employee’s age group, educational level and job level.

When it comes to attracting and retaining highly educated workers, Life Sciences & Chemicals employers should also highlight opportunities to develop functional skills, express creativity, and be challenged, while lower-educated workers may be more responsive to the valuing of ideas, independence, variation, and opportunities to share their knowledge with colleagues. Sought-after younger workers, meanwhile, are likely to respond well to the valuing of ideas, opportunities for growth and development, and sharing knowledge with others – and so these kinds of factors should be stressed in graduate recruiting material.

11

factors in employee retention and turnover

Key factors in deciding to remain with a current employerThe Randstad Award survey also asked a series of questions geared to reveal the key factors in employer retention and, conversely, turnover. Globally, job security was the most often cited reason for staying with a current employer, with 40% of respondents willing to stay for this reason. 28% would stay because of the financial health of their organization, while 26% would stay because of a pleasant working atmosphere. 22% would stay for either a convenient location or a competitive salary & employee benefits, 19% for a good work-life balance, and 18% for interesting job content. Less than 15% considered career progression opportunities, flexible working or good training to be major reasons to stay with an employer.

In terms of biases within these groups, women were more influenced than men by a pleasant work atmosphere, a convenient location, a good work-life balance and flexible working, while men were more likely than women to stay because of a company’s financial good health, a competitive salary, good training or career progression opportunities. Younger workers aged 18-24 were the age group most likely to be retained by a pleasant working atmosphere, good training or career growth prospects, while the 45-65 age group were the most influenced by a

convenient location, interesting job content, flexible working and long-term job security.

Office workers more often selected job security and a good work-life balance, while there was a preponderance of production workers amongst those who believed that a pleasant working atmosphere and a convenient location were key reasons to stay. Managers, meanwhile, were over-repre-sented amongst those willing to stay for reasons of financial health, competitive salary, inter-esting job content, career progression opportunities and good training.

Life Sciences & Chemicals sectorResults for the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector were largely in line with the general results, but with some small differences. The top 2 factors were the same as in the general sample, with even greater agreement: job security

(42%) and financial health (31%). However, for Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents, competitive salary & employee benefits (26%) was a more important reason to stay than a pleasant working atmosphere or a convenient location (23% each). Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents were also slightly more concerned with good training (12%), and less concerned with work-life balance (17%), interesting job content (16%), and flexible working (9%) than the general sample.

Women and men in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector showed similar trends to the general sample, although the bias toward men on job security, salary & benefits, career progression opportunities and good training that had been evident in the general sample was absent among Life Sciences

12

& Chemicals respondents. Similarly, in terms of age, the only real differences with the general sample were that it was the 45-65 age group (rather than the 25-44 group) that was most likely to stay for salary and benefits, and older workers were more likely than other age groups to cite financial health.

In terms of educational attainment and job level, lower-educated Life Sciences & Chemicals production workers, rather than managers or office workers, were the most likely to stay for job security, financial health of the company and salary & benefits (in addition to a pleasant working atmosphere or a convenient location). In all other respects, the education and job level biases in this sector matched those of the general sample: office workers were those most likely to mention work-life balance or flexible working, and higher-educated managers tended to value inter-esting job content, career progression opportunities and good training.

Key factors in deciding to leave a current employerRespondents were also asked to specify the factors that would make them leave a current employer. Globally, lack of compensation (i.e., salary and benefits that the employee deems insufficient) is clearly the main reason to change employers. This was true of 55% of respondents, especially those in the 18-24 age group. The next most often cited reasons to leave a company were a lack of career opportunities and an unpleasant work atmosphere (both 20%). Young people,

women, high-educated workers and office workers were more likely to cite a lack of career opportunities, while older, lower-educated or production workers were more influenced by an unpleasant work atmosphere.

17% of respondents cited lack of work-life balance (managers foremost among them), while 14% mentioned the need to gain more experience (this was more common among 18-24-year-olds, highly educated workers and managers). Older workers and managers were more likely to be among the 13% willing to leave because of a lack of support from management, while 18-24-year-olds, men and lower-educated workers were more common among those mentioning a lack of confidence in the future. The remaining reasons, each cited by just 10% of respondents, were the ambition to have a management role (especially men and younger workers), disinterest in job content (especially women, older

workers and production workers), and a lack of challenge in the current workplace (especially women, older workers and production workers).

Life Sciences & Chemicals sectorIn the Life Sciences & Chemicals sample, the results were largely the same. Lack of compensation (53%) again took the #1 position, followed by an unpleasant work atmosphere and a lack of career opportunities, which tied with 22% each. After that, agreement on the other factors did not differ from the general sample by more than 1%.

There were, however, some signif-icant differences when it came to biases within groups nominating each factor. Among Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents, more women than men nominated a lack of work-life balance and a need to gain more experience, while more men than women cited a lack of support from management. 25-44-year-olds, rather than 18-24-year-olds, were the age group most likely to change employer because of a lack

13

of compensation, a need to gain more experience, or an ambition to have a management role. Meanwhile, there was a bias towards younger workers on lack of work-life balance and lack of training, in addition to the expected lack of challenge in one’s current role. The oldest group of workers, rather than the youngest, dominated when it came to leaving because of a lack of career opportunities. This age group was also most likely to cite an unpleasant work atmosphere, a lack of support from management or a lack of confidence in the future as reasons to change employers.

Furthermore, among Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents, production workers (not office workers) were the most likely to leave because of a lack of compen-sation, office workers most often cited a lack of career opportunities, and managers dominated when it came to leaving because of a lack of training. In other respects, however, the education and job biases in this sector were in keeping with the general results.

Life Sciences & Chemicals conclusions on employee retention and turnoverThe results on factors in employee retention and turnover are, at first glance, somewhat paradoxical. While competitive salary & benefits appear to be only a moderate motivation to stay with an employer (though greater for Life Sciences & Chemicals respondents than general respondents), the lack of appro-priate compensation is by far the

most agreed-upon reason to leave a job. Similarly, career progression opportunities and a good work-life balance do not rate highly as reasons to stay, but rank #3 and #4 in the most common reasons to leave. On the other side of the equation, job security and financial health are cited as the most powerful retention factors, but few employees would consider leaving a company because of a lack of confidence in the future. In addition, respondents cite a wide range of potential reasons to stay, but their reasons to leave are much more narrowly focused.

The implication is clear: good handling of an issue and poor handling of an issue do not necessarily have proportionate effects. This is as true of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector as the general sample. Paying a competitive salary or providing good career progression oppor-tunities may not bind employees to a company, but inadequate compensation or a lack of growth opportunities may lead to a strong risk of driving them away.

In communicating an employer brand internally, therefore, companies would do well to cover the broad range of advantages they offer, with a particular emphasis on job security and financial health. When it comes to practical policies, however, they should prioritize meeting employees’ expectations insofar as compen-sation, career opportunities, work-life balance and working atmosphere are concerned – for mismanagement on these issues is most likely to lead to poor

retention and a high turnover. This is particularly true in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, where salary in particular is even more influential than in the general sample.

As far as workers of different gender, age, education level and job level are concerned, Life Sciences & Chemicals employers looking to retain more women may need to additionally stress the career opportunities, flexi-bility, pleasant atmosphere and good work-life balance they can offer (men in this sector, on the other hand, are slightly more influenced by financial health than women). Those aiming to retain Life Sciences & Chemicals workers in the 18-24 age group should focus on opportunities for career growth, training and development, and a pleasant working atmosphere, as well as the universally important factors of financial reward and job security. A good work-life balance finds greatest resonance with workers in the 25-45 age group, while older workers are the group most concerned with job security, financial health, a good salary, interesting job content, flexibility and accessi-bility.

In the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, office workers tend to be more concerned with a good work-life balance and flexible working; production workers appreciate job security, financial health, salary & benefits, a pleasant working atmosphere and a convenient location; and managers are likely to stay for interesting job content, career progression opportunities, good training and not too adverse a work-life balance.

14

Amongst respondents that knew one or more companies operating in the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, this sector ranked #3 in the global list of the most attractive sectors to work in. 40% of these respondents would like to work in the Life Sciences & Chemicals industry, behind Informatics/Consulting (48%) and Automotive (46%). This ranking

has remained stable over the past two years, with 39% wishing to work for the sector in 2012 and 40% in 2011. Life Sciences & Chemicals is only very slightly ahead of FMCG (39%), and the steadily rising Industrial/

This report’s assessment of the attractiveness of a sector is based on respondents’ percep-tions of the various companies that represent that sector in the Randstad Award survey. In previous sections of this report, when we spoke of ‘the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector’, we were referring to the group of survey respondents working in this specific sector. As we begin

to discuss the relative attrac-tiveness of the sector, however, we widen our view to include the perceptions of all respondents, regardless of the sector they are employed in.

attractiveness of thelife sciences & chemicals sector

Manufacturing sector (38%), but has a healthier lead over Services and Power/Utilities/Telecom (both 35%). Lower down the list, Construction, Travel/Leisure/ Hospitality and Non-profit continue to decline in attractiveness, with Retail and HR languishing at the bottom.

Attractiveness of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector by factorThe Randstad Award survey rated the attractiveness of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector in each country by all the factors already mentioned in the section on employee priorities. Numbers of sectors considered ranged between 16–24 in Europe, 8–26 in APAC and 16–22 in the Americas.

EuropeIn Europe, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector did rather well on almost all factors, except in Poland, where it rated very poorly (i.e., in the bottom half of sectors for all factors except CSR, for which it rates 7/16). It was one of the top 3 sectors on 8 (of 10) factors in the UK, 7 in the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium, 4 in Germany and Spain and 3 in France – and in each of these countries, there was never more than one factor in which Life Sciences & Chemicals was in the bottom half of sectors.

This report’s assessment of the attractiveness of a sector is based on respondents’ perceptions of the various companies that represent that sector in the Randstad Award survey

15

attractiveness of thelife sciences & chemicals sector

Taking Poland out of the equation, Life Sciences & Chemicals did best on salary & benefits, career progression opportunities, job security, and good training, and also scored strongly on financial health, interesting job content, and strong management. It did less well on pleasant working atmosphere, where it had no top 3 rankings and scored in the bottom half of sectors in Italy and the Netherlands. On work-life balance, too, the sector had middling results, ranking between #4 and #11. Likewise, while its scores on CSR were decent in most of the European countries, they were not stellar, and the sector actually rated just #13 of 16 sectors on this point in the Netherlands. Ironically enough, this is also the one factor upon

which the Polish Life Sciences & Chemicals sector narrowly made it into the top half of sectors, placing #7 out for 16.

Overall, Life Sciences & Chemicals had the highest average ratings in the UK, Belgium, Italy and Germany, and, obviously, the lowest ratings in Poland.

APACIn the Asia-Pacific region, results for the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector were much more mixed. It did very well in Japan and China, scoring in the top 7 of all sectors in the former and the top 5 in the latter. In Japan it was ranked #2 on job security, financial health and CSR, and #3 on working atmosphere and

These figures represent the relative position of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector compared to all sectors, e.g. 15/26 means the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector is ranked no 15 out of 26 sectors for this factor


16

results across the four countries included in the APAC sample, it is impossible to identify any factors upon which the whole region did particularly well or poorly.

AmericasIn the Americas, results for the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector were again very different in the two included countries, Canada and the USA. It did quite well in the USA, only scoring in the top #3 for financial health, but not ranking lower than #8 of 22 sectors on all other factors. In addition to the #3 ranking for financial health, the sector was higher-ranked on salary & benefits, career progression opportunities, job security, and strong management (all position #5), and lowest-ranked on working atmosphere (#8) and work-life balance (#7). In Canada, however, it scored in the bottom half of all sectors on

work-life balance, but only #7 out of 16 on career progression opportunities, training and strong management. In China, it was ranked #2 of 14 on career progression, financial health, training and strong management, and its lowest ranking was #5 on salary & benefits and interesting job content.

In Australia and India, however, Life Sciences & Chemicals did extremely poorly. In Australia, it was ranked in the bottom half of all sectors for all factors except for interesting job content (where it ranked #11 of 26), with particularly low rankings in work-life balance (#23), job security (#22) and working atmosphere (#20). The picture was even worse in India, where the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector was ranked last of 8 sectors on every single factor. With such disparate

every factor other than work-life balance (where it reached #5 out of 16). Its worst rankings were on strong management (#14), salary & benefits (#13), working atmosphere (#13), interesting job content (#13), and financial health (#12).

Overall Life Sciences & Chemicals attractiveness conclusionsRanking #3 in the global most attractive sectors list, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector is strongly positioned to attract and retain employees in many countries around the world, but its image is highly polarized in some regions. The extreme diversity of rankings across Europe, APAC and the Americas make it extremely difficult to reach any global conclusions for the sector. However, a few faint patterns can be discerned.

The sector seemed to perform worst overall in two factors: pleasant working atmosphere and strong management. It did relatively well on work-life balance in the Americas, but not brilliantly on this factor in Europe and APAC. Far more striking than the difference between rankings on different factors, however, was the difference between countries. In Poland, Australia, India and Canada, the sector scores very badly on almost all measures of attractiveness, while it is one of the stronger sectors in all other included countries. Employers are therefore advised to play close attention to their country results so that they can factor these regional prejudices and perceptions into their employer branding efforts.


17

limited pool of employees). Quartile 1 represents well-known but not particularly desirable companies/sectors, while Quartile 3 is the most disadvantaged: both little known and little desired by those that do know them.

Attractiveness of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector: Global comparisonsLooking at the combined attrac-tiveness of the companies repre-senting the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector in the various countries, the country in which the sector is most attractive and enjoys high name awareness is China, followed by the USA, Italy

So, to create a level playing field, the Randstad Award collects information on both the absolute attractiveness of a sector (the number of total respondents who indicate they would like to work for the organizations within that sector), and overall brand awareness (the number of people who know the company well enough to have an opinion about it).

Putting these two types of infor-mation together gives the key metric of the Randstad Awards, “relative attractiveness” – that is, the proportion of people who know a company and who would actually like to work for it. This metric eliminates the advantage well known organi-zations could have over lesser known ones.

This section compares the name awareness, relative attrac-tiveness and overall attrac-tiveness of sectors in various countries based on the following grid.

The best employer/sector position is Quartile 2, which combines high name awareness with high relative attractiveness. Quartile 4 also indicates high relative attractiveness, but lower name awareness (and thus access to the best of a more

sector attractiveness

When assessing the attractiveness of a sector, it is important to factor in that a sector that contains companies with a lower public profile could be at a disadvantage compared to sectors that feature large companies with higher name recognition

and Germany. The Life Sciences & Chemicals sectors in India and Spain are very desirable to those in the know, but lower name awareness somewhat limits the pool from which employers can draw.

Life Sciences & Chemicals employers in Japan and, to a lesser extent, Belgium, enjoy high name awareness but lower relative attractiveness, indicating that they have limited choice from among a large but less qualified talent pool. The situation appears grimmer for Life Sciences & Chemicals employers in France, the UK, Poland, Canada, the Nether-

18

lands and Australia and Canada, where their name awareness and relative attractiveness are both at the lower end of the scale.

When interpreting these ratings, however, it is important to remember that certain labor markets tend to take a more positive outlook on all sectors than others, especially when unemployment is high and job-seekers cannot afford to be as choosy as in healthier economies. In this respect, it is not the overall name awareness and desirability of a sector, but its relative position compared with other sectors in the same labor market that will be most decisive when it comes to finding and retaining the best talent. For a fuller picture of the position of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector, therefore, we turn to its relative position in each country.

Attractiveness of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector comparative to other sectors in each countryIn the European countries included in this section, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector most often landed in Quartile 4 (lower name awareness but higher relative attractiveness compared with other sectors in the same country). In Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and France, all countries where the sector had lower relative attrac-tiveness scores in the global comparison, the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector nonetheless did better than most other sectors in the same country when it came to relative attractiveness. In the

Netherlands, the sector came in #4 in relative attractiveness behind the Care, Education and Public sectors; in the UK it was #2 behind Automotive/Aerospace. In Belgium, where the sector is split into Chemical and Pharmaceuticals, the former enjoys decent relative attrac-tiveness, while the latter is rated as the most attractive of all sectors. In France too, relative attractiveness was above the median. But in all four countries, low name awareness kept these sectors in Quartile 4.

Life Sciences & Chemicals was similarly positioned in Germany, Italy and Spain, despite the fact that these countries had higher raw scores for the sector in the global comparison. It positioned #4 in relative attractiveness in both Italy and Germany, but was again hampered by low name awareness. Meanwhile, in Spain, the sector managed just enough

relative attractiveness to land in Quartile 4. The attractiveness of the sector dropped significantly since 2012, but the same was true of almost all sectors, so the competitive advantage of the sector remains roughly the same. The outsider in Europe was Poland, where the Life Sciences & Chemicals sectors suffered a quite astonishing decline in attractiveness since 2012, when Pharma/Cosmetics in particular was among the top 5 most attractive sectors. Now the second-least attractive sector after retail, and thrown back even further by low-middling name awareness, the sector lands squarely in the least favorable Quartile 3.

In most European countries, therefore, the sector has low name awareness compared with other sectors, but decent (though not stellar) relative attractiveness. Employers in this

19

sector tend to be niche players that are well positioned to secure those in the know but do not have enough name awareness to draw from a large pool of recruits. Across all of the European countries except for Germany, the sector suffered a moderate decline in popularity since 2012.

Once again, the position of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector within the APAC countries considered is very inconsistent. It is clearly the least favored sector in India, ranking lowest in both name awareness and relative attractiveness. It is also rated as considerably less attractive than in 2012, but so too are most other sectors – and in any case, Life Sciences & Chemicals was the worst positioned sector in India in 2012 as well. In Australia, too, the sector is ranked very low on both name awareness and relative attrac-tiveness, landing it (as in 2012) around the bottom of the least-favorable Quartile 3.

The situation is better in Japan, where the sector has slightly increased in relative attrac-tiveness since 2012, taking position #3 behind FMCG and Internet & Content. Its lower name awareness, however, means it lands in Quartile 4 rather than the favorable Quartile 2 – and since there are a great many sectors in Quartile 2, Life Sciences & Chemicals faces very stiff competition in the Japanese labor market. In APAC, Life Sciences & Chemicals does best in China, where it ranks #3 of three sectors way out in front of the pack on relative attrac-

tiveness (Manufacturing – Electrical & Power and Power/Utilities/Telecom). On name awareness it is on the median line, placing it between Quartiles 2 and 4.

The Life Sciences & Chemicals sector is also perceived very differently in Canada versus the USA. In the USA it performs quite well, ranking #6 in relative attractiveness behind High Tech Manufacturing, IT, Aerospace/Defense, Hospitality & Enter-tainment, and Construction & Engineering, but with middling name awareness landing it in Quartile 4. In Canada, however, the “Healthcare” sector has the lowest name awareness of all sectors, and only low-middling relative attractiveness. One of only two sectors in the least favorable Quartile 3, it is at a very severe disadvantage in the competition for talent.

Perceptions of the Life Sciences & Chemicals sector are therefore very different in different countries and regions. The sector is quite well positioned relative to other sectors in China, Japan, the USA and most of Europe, but very poorly regarded in Poland, India, Australia and Canada. This high degree of polarization makes it difficult to define global trends – and all the more important for employers to understand the specific motivations and percep-tions of local labor markets and tailor their communications accordingly. Employers struggling with a poor sector image could look to those countries where the sector enjoys more positive percep-

tions, for guidance on more effective communication strategies, though local conditions will naturally be highly influential. Meanwhile, Life Sciences & Chemicals employers in Europe, China, Japan and the USA should work on further building name awareness in order to expand their reach in the local and global labor markets.

If you have any questions please contact:Randstad Holding nvGroup Marketing and [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]