When the Middle East situation first escalated, decisions had to be made rapidly, often with limited information and constantly changing conditions.
AIRINC’s March 2026 pulse survey, Assignee Evacuations and Danger Pay in the Middle East, captured how companies were responding in the immediate phase, including evacuation decisions and early questions around danger pay.
Companies are now considering:
AIRINC’s latest pulse survey, Evolving Mobility Support in the Middle East, shows that among impacted organisations, nearly half are actively returning assignees to their host locations, while another 36% are planning returns but remain uncertain on timing.
That split reflects what mobility teams are experiencing: conditions may be stabilising in some places, but confidence and timing are not aligned for everyone.
In short: Mobility teams are shifting from emergency response to structured decision-making. Return-to-host decisions are no longer based on security alone. Companies are also weighing business need, employee willingness, family circumstances, schooling, compliance exposure, remote work feasibility, and compensation governance.
Security and geopolitical stability remain the biggest factors influencing return decisions, but are not the only considerations.
Our survey found that 69% of companies cited security or geopolitical stability as a top influence, while 55% cited business need and 49% cited employee willingness or request.
It is clear that whilst a location may be operationally viable, an employee may still not feel comfortable returning. A business may need someone back in-country, while a family may be focused on preserving schooling and other wellbeing concerns.
As a result, companies are increasingly consulting across multiple stakeholder groups when making decisions.
For many assignee families, one of the most important questions is whether the family can realistically return without disrupting a child’s education.
Among evacuated assignee families, 41% of companies are supporting remote or virtual schooling with the host school, while 33% are managing support on a case-by-case basis.
This creates difficult consistency questions for mobility teams:
How long should virtual schooling continue?
Should companies fund temporary education in the home location?
At what point does temporary support become a longer-term assignment cost?
The timing of the academic year also complicates decision-making influencing whether a family is willing or able to return.
One of the clearest findings from the survey is that companies are still managing employees flexibly.
Among assignees who have not returned to the host location:
55% of companies are using a case-by-case approach,
49% are allowing extended remote work,
and one-third are maintaining assignment status while employees remain outside the host location
Such flexibility has a cost as every case requires review and every delayed return creates downstream implications. This is where clear timescales become increasingly important and companies may need a more formal review of:
where the employee is working,
what compliance risks exist,
Many organisations continue to rely on manual tracking methods. Nearly half are using Excel or offline tracking, while 32% rely on assignee self-reporting. Only 10% reported using assignment management software.
Tracking also has a compliance dimension. Remote work days and tax exposure all need to be monitored carefully which reinforces the need for close coordination between mobility, tax, immigration and the business.
In the early stages of an evacuation or temporary relocation, many companies maintain support while they assess the situation. Over time, that becomes harder.
Our survey shows that:
32% of companies are maintaining the full assignment package,
20% are adjusting selected elements such as COLA, hardship, or housing,
and 18% are managing compensation case by case.
Mobility teams are increasingly facing difficult questions around how long should COLA & Hardship should continue if the employee is no longer in the host location.
Some organisations reported ceasing COLA or hardship after employees have been outside the host location for between 30 and 90 days. A fixed timeline may be easier to administer, but it may not always reflect the reality of each case.
Companies remain cautious about changing compensation too quickly which can affect employee confidence and impact return-to-host discussions.
Danger pay continues to be one of the most sensitive topics.
Many organisations remain cautious because danger pay can create difficult messages:
Is the company compensating employees for remaining in a risky location?
Does the payment imply the risk is acceptable?
How should companies manage employees who feel differently about the same location?
Companies are also recognising that danger pay requires clear governance without which it can become difficult to remove, especially if employees still feel unsafe.
Many organisations are now considering how danger pay frameworks can be built into future crisis response planning rather than handled reactively.
The Middle East situation continues to show that during periods of uncertainty, companies need:
Reliable employee tracking
Clear return-to-host criteria
Practical education support principles
Defined compensation review timelines
Trigger points for extended remote work
A clear approach to COLA, hardship, housing, and other assignment allowances
Danger pay governance
Close coordination between mobility, tax, immigration, security, HR, and business leaders
For some organisations it is becoming a broader discussion around what the “new normal” should look like for higher-risk locations.
Companies are looking at apply lessons learnt by updating mobility processes and policies to ensure more proactive decisions can be made if a similar situation arises.
This will reduce the reactive nature of some of the approaches we have seen to the current unrest and will give mobility teams the confidence that they can refer to a well thought out and strength tested approach that has the input and approval of the wider business.
If it would be helpful to continue the discussion or share perspectives on how organisations are approaching any of the issues in this blog, I can be reached at cfielding@air-inc.com.
This article builds on AIRINC’s earlier pulse survey, Assignee Evacuations and Danger Pay in the Middle East published in March 2026, which is available as a free download. For a deeper discussion of danger pay, including when it may apply and why governance matters, see our related blog on danger pay.