I recently had the opportunity to bring together mobility professionals supporting employees across the Middle East for a roundtable, supported by insights from our latest Pulse Survey exploring how organisations are approaching evacuations and danger pay in response to the current conflict.

Mobility Teams Are Responding to the Middle East Situation

These conversations are incredibly valuable—not just for the data they provide, but for the perspectives of those navigating these challenges every day.

What stood out to me was not a single, clear approach, but a collective picture of how organisations are responding in real time through careful decisions, difficult trade-offs, and thoughtful judgment.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer here.

Organisations are navigating a rapidly evolving situation while balancing employee safety, business continuity, and compliance considerations—often without complete information. What I am seeing is less about formal policy change and more about how existing policies are being interpreted and applied in the moment.

A Region in Motion—But No Rush to Act

Despite the pace of developments, organisations are not currently moving towards blanket evacuation decisions.

Our Pulse Survey indicates that while 82% of organisations have assignees in affected GCC locations, responses remain measured:

• 44% are offering voluntary evacuation options

• Only 16% have implemented mandatory evacuations

• Over one-third report no evacuations at all

This aligns closely with what was shared during the roundtable discussions. Where possible, organisations appear to be favouring flexibility and employee choice, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. This helps companies adapt to a situation that is still very much evolving.

Remote Work vs. Repatriation: A Defining Trade-Off

For companies supporting evacuations, a key consideration is what comes next. Can employees work remotely from any chosen location, or should they return to their home country (where they have the legal right to reside and work)?

Whilst supporting remote work from any location may appear more accommodating to employees, it introduces additional complexity—particularly where employees disperse across multiple jurisdictions.

A clear pattern is emerging:

• 84% of employees are returning to their home country when they evacuate

This is not necessarily because it is the most flexible option, but because it is often the most manageable from a tax, immigration, and compliance perspective.

Danger Pay: Cautious and Evolving

It is important when talking about danger pay to understand what it is—and, more importantly, what it isn’t.

Danger pay is a short-term, reactive payment introduced in response to a sudden increase in risk (e.g. conflict or security events). It differs from hardship allowances, which are longer-term compensation elements designed to reflect living conditions in more challenging locations.

From our recent discussions, danger pay remains an area where approaches are still evolving.

Across both the survey and roundtable discussions, there is no consistent market position. Some organisations have already introduced payments, others are actively considering it, while many are taking a more cautious approach.

Where payments are being made, they typically fall within the range of 10–20% of salary or are structured as flat allowances.

At the same time, organisations are carefully weighing the implications of introducing such payments. There is a recognition that once implemented, these allowances may be difficult to withdraw, which is influencing a more measured approach.

Short-Term Solutions, Structured Reviews

When it comes to evacuation support and danger pay, organisations appear to be favouring temporary measures that are reviewed at set intervals, rather than making permanent changes.

From the roundtable discussions we found that:

• Some organisations are working with 30-day review cycles

• Others are operating on 2–3 month timeframes

• In some cases, decisions are linked to external trigger events, such as government guidance

This reflects the uncertainty of the current environment—decisions are being made for the immediate term, with flexibility to adapt as the situation evolves.

The Hidden Driver: Compliance

While employee safety remains the immediate priority, compliance considerations are shaping many of the decisions around evacuation and remote working.

Alongside addressing employee wellbeing, mobility teams are trying to balance:

• Corporate tax and permanent establishment risk

• Personal tax exposure

• Immigration and work authorisation requirements

These factors are often a key driver behind decisions such as evacuating employees to their home country, rather than enabling more flexible third-country arrangements.

In this context, companies are trying to balance not only what is possible, but what is practical and manageable over both the short and longer term.

A Coordinated Response Across Functions

It was also encouraging to hear that mobility teams are not handling these responses on their own—they are working with various other functions to provide a multi-angled solution in these times of uncertainty.

We found that mobility teams are working closely with:

• Corporate security

• HR and business leadership

• Tax and immigration specialists

Together, these groups are monitoring developments, tracking employee locations, and balancing risk with employee support.

Whilst mobility may be playing a central role in coordinating these efforts, they are by no means operating in isolation.

The Human Factor: More Than Logistics

Whilst operational and compliance considerations are key, organisations are putting the human impact first.

As well as addressing immediate evacuation needs, companies are also making provision for the broader needs of employees and their families to minimise disruption, including:

• Managing uncertainty around safety and return timelines

• Supporting temporary schooling and accommodation

• Assisting colleagues still in-country with ‘work at home’ arrangements, etc.

During periods of uncertainty—even if an organisation does not have all the answers—communication becomes critical. From our survey and roundtable discussions, approaches that appear to be working well include:

• Regular, transparent updates

• Creating space for questions—even where answers are still evolving

• Providing access to wellbeing and support services

We found that uncertainty itself can be one of the most significant stressors; how organisations communicate during this period can have a meaningful impact.

No One-Size Approach—But Clear Patterns Emerging

As companies adapt and react to the ongoing situation in the Middle East, it is clear that there is no single defined solution. However, while organisations take different approaches, some consistent themes are emerging from the survey and roundtable discussions:

• Flexibility over fixed policies is allowing companies to respond to an evolving situation

• Employee choice remains a key consideration (within operational and compliance parameters)

• Multi-team involvement (tax, security, etc.) is providing well-rounded responses

• The use of structured review points helps manage uncertainty and expectations

• There is a growing demand for industry insights (“what is everyone else doing?”) during periods of geopolitical instability

Final Thoughts

More than anything, this current situation in the Middle East highlights that mobility is not just about policy—it is about people.

Behind each decision on evacuation or danger pay are employees and families navigating uncertainty, disruption, and concerns around safety and stability.

Organisations that appear to be responding most effectively are those balancing flexibility with clear governance and communication, while keeping the human impact front of mind.

As the situation continues to evolve, the role of mobility remains consistent: to support employees, manage risk, and adapt in real time.

This is still a developing landscape. We will continue to monitor how mobility responses evolve—particularly around evacuation strategies and danger pay, as organisations move from immediate, reactive decisions towards more structured approaches.

Read more from our recent blog on Danger Pay

Danger pay is generally intended as a short-term financial allowance, rather than a permanent adjustment to compensation. While it may help acknowledge the circumstances employees are facing, it is typically only one element of a broader organisational response that includes security measures, communication, and employee support.

What Is Danger Pay?

Danger pay is a temporary financial allowance provided to employees working in locations where security risks have increased.

It is most commonly introduced when circumstances such as conflict, civil unrest, or political instability create heightened risk for employees who remain in the location.

The purpose of danger pay is to recognise that employees may be working under unusual or difficult conditions, often with increased uncertainty or disruption.

Because these situations can evolve quickly, danger pay is typically reviewed regularly and may be discontinued once conditions stabilise.

Frequently Asked Questions About Danger Pay

What is danger pay?

Danger pay is a temporary allowance paid to employees working in locations where security risks have increased due to conflict, civil unrest, or political instability.

Is danger pay the same as hardship pay?

No. Hardship pay compensates employees for long-term difficult living conditions, while danger pay is typically introduced in response to short-term security risks.

Is danger pay permanent?

In most cases, danger pay is temporary and reviewed regularly as conditions evolve.

Does danger pay replace employer duty of care?

No. Financial recognition does not replace an organisation’s responsibility to provide appropriate security measures and support for employees.

Read more here.