The Universum
Graduate Survey
2006
r
Swiss Edition
University Report
Universität St.Gallen
The Universum Graduate Survey 2006
Swiss Edition
University Report
Universität St.Gallen
© 2006 Universum Communications Sweden AB. All rights
reserved.
Reproduction of all or parts of the information contained in this
report is forbidden without the expressed permission of Universum
Communications Sweden AB.
Due to the nature of any statistical survey, where large amounts of
material are gathered, processed, and analyzed, errors may occur.
Universum Communications Sweden AB will not bear the
responsibility for any costs, losses, or damages incurred due to any
such errors.
Universum Communications Sweden AB
Karlavägen 108
P.O. Box 7053
SE-103 86 Stockholm
Telephone +46 (0) 8 5620 27 00
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.universumeurope.com
Fax: +46 (0) 8 5620 20 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Build an Employer Brand _______________________________________________ 5
Employer Branding – The Universum Way________________________________ 6
Definitions of Key Terms _______________________________________________ 8
Methodology __________________________________________________________ 9
Definition of the Target Group _________________________________________ 10
Student Profile _______________________________________________________ 11
Key Segment: High Achievers ____________________________________________________________
Key Segment: Internationalists ____________________________________________________________
Key Segment: Specialists ________________________________________________________________
Key Segment: Potential Managers _________________________________________________________
Key Segment: Socially Responsible _______________________________________________________
Gender and Age________________________________________________________________________
Area of Study - Business_________________________________________________________________
Area of Study – Engineering ______________________________________________________________
Academic Performance and Type of Degree ________________________________________________
Additional Academic Degree _____________________________________________________________
Language Skills ________________________________________________________________________
Experience/Qualifications ________________________________________________________________
Personal Characteristics _________________________________________________________________
Preferred Industry_______________________________________________________________________
Career Goals __________________________________________________________________________
Career Goals – Historical Overview _______________________________________________________
Expected Compensation _________________________________________________________________
Trainee Programme _____________________________________________________________________
University Satisfaction ___________________________________________________________________
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Market Position_______________________________________________________ 33
Ideal Employer Rankings - Top 50 Business_________________________________________________
Ideal Employer Rankings - Top 50 Engineering & Science _____________________________________
Ideal Employer Ranking, High Achievers - Business __________________________________________
Ideal Employer Ranking, High Achievers - Engineering & Science_______________________________
Ideal Employer Ranking, First Choice - Business _____________________________________________
Ideal Employer Ranking, First Choice - Engineering & Science _________________________________
Potential Applicants Ranking - Business ____________________________________________________
Potential Applicants Ranking - Engineering & Science ________________________________________
Ideal Employer Rankings - Universität St.Gallen______________________________________________
Potential Applicants Ranking - Universität St.Gallen __________________________________________
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Employer Image ______________________________________________________ 46
Attractive Employer Qualities _____________________________________________________________
Attractive Employer Qualities – Historical Overview __________________________________________
Important Decision Factors _______________________________________________________________
Compensation Package _________________________________________________________________
Employer’s Perceived Characteristics ______________________________________________________
Employer’s Perceived Offerings ___________________________________________________________
Apply to the Ideal Employer ______________________________________________________________
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Communication _______________________________________________________ 56
Preferred Sources of Information __________________________________________________________
Actual Sources of Information_____________________________________________________________
Actual vs. Preferred Sources of Information - Universität St.Gallen ______________________________
Actual vs. Preferred Sources of Information - Total ___________________________________________
58
59
60
61
Participating educational institutions___________________________________ 62
Appendix _____________________________________________________________ 63
Overall Survey Results___________________________________________________________________ 64
INTRODUCTION
5
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
BUILD AN EMPLOYER BRAND
What attracts young talents today? Which channels do students use when searching for information
about future employers? Which are the most attractive industries among students? In order to answer
these questions, research on the employer market is the first crucial step in the logical chain of
employer branding.
The Universum Graduate Survey is an annual report which will help employers understand how to
attract new competence to their organisation and how to communicate with these students.
All companies have an ‘Employer Brand’, whether they like it or not. What is communicated by the
company affects the general perception among future employees.
Universum Communications – The Employer Branding Specialist
Universum is a global leader in the field of employer branding with operations in Europe, US, Asia and
Africa. We help our clients to reach one goal: To have a strong appeal on their current and future ideal
employees. To this aim we provide our clients with services in the field of Research, Strategy and
Communications.
Our unique competence is based on the extensive global surveys on the talent market covering more
than 150 000 respondents from 27 countries annually. We produce more than 25 employer branding
publications in Europe, US and Africa, which gives us outstanding communications skills in this field.
Our clients include the majority of the Fortune 100 top companies.
Universum specializes in helping you to hone your recruitment and retention strategies. Utilizing our
years of experience as an unparalleled liaison between companies and students, we assist many of the
world's top corporations with improving their success in attracting, recruiting and retaining top talent.
Our knowledge of the competence supply chain is unmatched. We offer customized consulting services
tailored to our clients' specific needs.
”A common mistake that people make when formulating and expressing
an Employer Brand is that they oversell. It is a mistake to create
expectations without the ability to deliver them.”
(Jens Jenssen, Vice President of HR, Statoil)
INTRODUCTION
6
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
EMPLOYER BRANDING – THE UNIVERSUM WAY
Employer branding is a logical process through which companies reach one main goal: To have a
strong appeal on their current and future ideal employees. It is an ongoing process separate from short
term recruitment needs or activities. It is a strategic process crucial for financial success in competitive
markets. Employer branding success depends on co-operation of HR, Marketing and Communications
functions in every company.
”For better or for worse, you already have an Employer Brand” (David Lee, consultant and
founder of HumanNature@Work)
All communications and information from your company influence how your current and future
employees perceive you. Do you know how your Brand is perceived today? Do you know how you want
it to be perceived? Who is your ideal employee?
Marketing the company as an employer
How does an employer market itself as an employer? Employer branding includes all communication in
attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining ideal employees. Systematic employer branding
emphasizes the unique advantages of the workplace and those aspects of the company and its culture
that the target groups appreciate. Structured employer branding also ensures a coherent message and
a correct picture of what it is like to work for the company.
Employer branding starts with the business strategy
The starting point for employer branding is the company business strategy. The business strategy
defines the business goals and how you will try to reach those goals. This in turn defines the resources
the organisation needs to execute its business strategy.
The employees and their competencies are the most important resources for the majority of companies
and organisations of today. The business strategy determines what kind of employees and
competencies the company needs at present and in the future. And this is where employer branding
comes into the picture. Once the employer knows what kind of employees they need, they have to
develop according to the needs and start marketing the company as an employer.
Attracting and retaining the right talent
Employer branding implies different challenges for different companies. It is a common misconception
that the main objective in employer branding is to be well known on the labour market. Naturally, it is
important that people know the organisation, but not necessarily everyone. The objective is to attract
and retain the target groups; the individuals the company needs to execute its business goals. It may
however be a waste of resources to market the company to everyone. The target groups include current
employees as well as future potential employees.
The objective is to find the “right” talents – people that fit your organisation, its values and work ethics. It
is very likely that these people will thrive, will be loyal and will excel at their work. And it is therefore likely
that they will make the business goals come true.
INTRODUCTION
7
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Employer Branding Model
The concept of employer branding is being recognised by a rapidly growing number of leading
companies and organisations as part of their main strategic challenges. We work with our partners by
assisting them in understanding the full process of employer branding as presented in our model below.
Our model is based on more than 15 years experience of working with internationally leading companies
in the fields of understanding and communicating with ideal employees. The purpose of the model is to
allow companies to structure their EB activities in order to ensure success.
Universum’s Employer Branding Model
The report you are holding in your hands is one of the tools to be used in the first phase of the process,
in research. It will help you understand how your company, your industry and your recruitment
competitors are perceived by young graduates and potential employees. You will learn how employer
branding influences student’s opinions and ideas, and what it takes to attract tomorrow’s leaders. By
directly reaching your ideal employees you shorten the recruitment process and save costs. We trust
you will find this report an invaluable tool in strengthening your Employer Brand.
Universum Communications hope you will find this report interesting and inspirational!
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
8
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
Ranking Lists
For each company, students are asked to indicate whether they are familiar with the company and
whether they would consider working there. Respondents are also provided with space to ‘write in’
companies for which they would consider working if they do not find them on the list. After going
through the list and marking an alternative for each company, respondents are asked to select up to five
ideal employers for which they would ideally like to work.
The familiar company ranking list; the companies are ranked according to the percentages of
respondents who are familiar with the company.
The considered employer ranking list; the companies are ranked according to the percentages of
respondents who are familiar with the company and would consider working for them.
The ideal employer ranking list; the companies are ranked according to the percentages of respondents
who select them as one of their ideal employers (respondents may choose up to five).
The first choice ranking list is based upon the ideal ranking, but only lists the first hand choice among
the students’ five ideal employers.
The potential applicants ranking list; the companies are ranked according to the percentages of
respondents who select the company as one of their ideal employers and have, or will, apply to this
company in the future.
(Please note that ‘pushed’ companies, (companies that respondents have frequently written in), are
included on all ranking lists, and are marked with an asterisk.)
Employers
Ideal Employer
A company (either selected from the questionnaire’s company list or written in by respondents) for
which students report that they would most like to work.
Considered Employer
A company (either selected from the questionnaire’s company list or written in by respondents) for
which students report that they would consider working.
Familiar Company
A company (either selected from the questionnaire’s company list or written in by respondents) whose
products or services the respondents report that they are familiar with.
Reports
Ideal Company Report
If at least 30 students choose the company as an ideal employer, the report data is based on these
responses.
Considered Company Report
If less than 30 respondents have selected the company as an ideal employer, the data is based on
those students who report that they would consider working for the company. Recruitment competitor
data is based on the students choosing them as ideal employers.
Communication Insight Report
This is a separate report focusing on information and communication regarding employer branding.
Additional Reports
The product portfolio consists of several reports. In addition to the standard company report, we
produce a wide range of standard and semi-standard reports such as gender, competitor, area of study,
university, industry report. It is also possible to produce special target reports based on a companies
own definition of their “most-wanted-students”.
METHODOLOGY
9
©2006 UNIVERSUM COMMUNICATIONS
METHODOLOGY
The Universum Graduate Survey questionnaire is built through accumulated knowledge and experience
from previous surveys, and also through input from students and academic research. Our aim is to keep
previous years’ questions to detect changes over time, and also add new questions that reflect current
issues and trends. The Universum Graduate Survey was comprised mainly of closed-ended questions.
An extensive list of responses to each question was offered, including the option ‘Other’ with space for
students to write in their own responses.
The company list was constructed from information derived from discussions with clients and
participating educational institutions, as well as from objective criteria such as the company’s market
share and industry. The top 60 ideal employers from the previous year’s survey were automatically
included, as were those companies most frequently ‘written in’ by respondents in previous years
(‘pushed companies’).
Before and during the field period, all educational institutions included in the survey are being
contacted. The Career Services Departments at these educational institutions is the main contact for
Universum Communications.
Distribution of the questionnaires was handled primarily by Universum's partner educational institutions.
In some cases the questionnaires were distributed on campus by Universum employees.
Respondents to Universum's surveys are anonymous, no personal records are kept. Responses are
treated as an aggregate; no individual responses are studied.
Number of respondents: 3588, of these 1481 are business students and 1983 are engineering
students
Number of educational institutions: 24
Field period: 28 November 2005 - 1 April 2006
DEFINITION OF THE TARGET GROUP
10
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
DEFINITION OF THE TARGET GROUP
The results in this report are based on the groups and the number of respondents shown below.
3588
Main Group
Number of respondents: 145
Base for the group: Universität St.Gallen
Comparison Group
Number of respondents: 3588
Base for the group: All students in the suvey
STUDENT PROFILE
11
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
STUDENT PROFILE
“People are not your most
important asset. The right
people are” (Good to
great, Jim Collins, Random
House Business Books,
London UK, 2001)
Defining the profile of the company’s ideal employees is often the
first step in successful employer branding. However, many
companies neglect the fact that defining and getting to know the
target group is just as important in employer branding as in
consumer or business-to-business branding. Is there any company
who would market a product without knowing who is supposed to
buy it?
It is important that the employer evaluate the jobs the company
offers the same way they view their products or services. What does
the company sell and to whom does it sell? The answer is that the
employer is selling careers to their ideal employees, i.e. the students
they want to attract, recruit and retain. If an employer is clear about
their target groups, the process of identifying their needs and
preferences will be significantly easier.
STUDENT PROFILE
12
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Reasons for Defining Target Groups
The main reason for defining target group(s) is that it will increase the efficiency of a company’s
employer branding efforts. First and foremost, in order to attract the ideal employees of the company,
the employer must communicate with them in a way that appeals to them. Moreover to communicate the
right values and choosing the right communication channels the target group must be identified and
understood. Without knowing who to communicate with the employer will most likely end up wasting
money.
Secondly, receiving inquiries and applications from students with profiles not relevant to the needs of
the employer will add costs from screening and other administrative activities. Furthermore, the
company risks recruiting people who are not the right ‘fit’. Keep in mind that the company’s actual target
group(s) might differ from the students they are currently attracting, i.e. their attracted students.
Defining the target groups
This chapter will guide you through the different variables characterizing the company’s targeted or
attracted students. Moreover, it will show what characteristics employers may include in their definition
of their ideal employees.
There are two basic aspects that need to be considered when defining the target groups:
Demographical factors: Gender, university, field and area of study etc.
Personality factors: Academic performance, personality, experience, career goals etc.
The combination of demographical and personality factors will form the profile of the students within the
target groups. For instance, target schools might be an important aspect of the target group, e.g. due to
that some schools offer areas of study which other schools do not have in their academic programs.
Another potential situation is an unbalanced work force in terms of the ratio between men and women,
hence one factor defining the target group might be gender.
To exemplify, Universum has developed and pre-defined five different key segments that have proven to
be relevant to companies in most industries:
High Achievers – Top performing students with a high level of drive
- Students with an excellent academic record (grade 8 – 10 on a 1 – 10 scale) and at least two extra
scholar qualifying experiences, such as internships, engagement in a student union/association or
studies abroad.
Internationalists – Students with international experience and perspective
- Students who speak at least one foreign language very good or fluently and who own a minimum of
two international experiences, e.g. exchange studies in another country or an internship abroad.
Specialists – Students with an interest in technology and leading edge services
- Students who have the desire to become a specialist. In addition they want to develop new products.
Innovation and exciting products or services are important decision factors when they choose employer.
Potential Managers – Students who have a desire to become managers
- Students who score high “manage projects” and “reach managerial level”. Potential managers find
managerial responsibility a very attractive employer offering. They also believe they have leadership
qualities.
Socially responsible – Students with a social responsibility perspective on their career
- Students who aspire to contributing to society by working for an employer committed to high ethical
standards. Many of the socially responsible students are attracted to non profit organizations.
If your company wants to explore one or more of these target groups in detail it is possible to order
target reports based on the groups above. Please note that the groups are not based on statistical
analysis method, but rather our experience of what constitutes these often requested target groups.
Furthermore; the segments are not mutually exclusive.
13
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Key Segment: High Achievers
Below, a ranking of the companies that attracts the largest share of ‘High Achievers’ among the
students that have selected them as an ideal employer is presented. This key target group (‘High
Achievers’) consists of top performing students with a high level of drive.
Ranking
Percent
Roland Berger
1
48%
Bain & Company
2
44%
Goldman Sachs
3
39%
The Boston Consulting Group
4
38%
Cambridge Technology Partners
5
36%
DuPont
6
33%
Morgan Stanley
7
31%
McKinsey & Company
8
31%
Kühne & Nagel
9
30%
Merrill Lynch
10
30%
JPMorgan
11
30%
Bayer
12
28%
Accenture
13
27%
Danone
14
26%
Procter & Gamble
15
26%
Zürich Financial Services
16
26%
IBM
17
24%
Bombardier Transportation
18
23%
Richmont Group
19
23%
SAP Schweiz
20
23%
14
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Key Segment: Internationalists
Below, a ranking of the companies that attracts the largest share of ‘Internationalists’ among the
students that have selected them as an ideal employer is presented. This key target group
(‘Internationalists’) consists of students with international experience and perspective.
Ranking
Percent
Cambridge Technology Partners
1
36%
Bain & Company
2
33%
Philip Morris
3
32%
The Boston Consulting Group
4
30%
Danone
5
29%
McKinsey & Company
6
29%
Citigroup
7
25%
Richmont Group
8
24%
Goldman Sachs
9
24%
Procter & Gamble
10
23%
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
11
23%
Morgan Stanley
12
23%
Unilever
13
22%
Accenture
14
21%
Roland Berger
14
21%
Swiss Life
14
21%
MasterFoods
17
21%
Roche
17
21%
Deloitte
19
21%
Philips
20
21%
15
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Key Segment: Specialists
Below, a ranking of the companies that attracts the largest share of ‘Specialists’ among the students
that have selected them as an ideal employer is presented. This key target group (‘Specialists’) consists
of students with an interest in technology and leading edge services.
Ranking
Percent
Ascom
1
35%
Sun Microsystems
2
32%
Unaxis
3
31%
Philips
4
30%
Cisco Systems
5
29%
IBM
6
28%
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
7
28%
Pilatus Aircraft
8
28%
Oerlikon Contraves
9
26%
Ericsson
10
26%
Bosch
11
26%
Hewlett-Packard
12
25%
Siemens
13
25%
Leica Geosystems
14
24%
Cambridge Technology Partners
15
23%
Georg Fischer
16
23%
Microsoft
17
23%
Bombardier Transportation
18
23%
DuPont
19
23%
Syngenta
19
23%
16
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Key Segment: Potential Managers
Below, a ranking of the companies that attracts the largest share of ‘Potential Managers’ among the
students that have selected them as an ideal employer is presented. This key target group (‘Potential
Managers’) consists of students who have a desire to become managers.
Ranking
Percent
The Boston Consulting Group
1
37%
Bank Julius Bär
2
36%
Kühne & Nagel
3
36%
HSBC
4
36%
Accenture
5
35%
Hilti
6
35%
Schweizer Armee
7
35%
JPMorgan
8
34%
Ernst & Young
9
33%
SAP Schweiz
10
31%
McKinsey & Company
11
31%
MasterFoods
12
30%
Philip Morris
13
29%
Holcim
14
29%
UBS
15
29%
Citigroup
16
29%
PricewaterhouseCoopers
17
29%
Procter & Gamble
18
28%
Bank Leu
19
28%
Richmont Group
20
28%
17
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Key Segment: Socially Responsible
Below, a ranking of the companies which attracts the largest share of ‘Socially Responsible’ among the
students that have selected them as an ideal employer is being shown. This key target group (‘Socially
Responsible’) consists of students with a social responsibility perspective on their career.
Ranking
Percent
Bundesverwaltung
1
46%
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
2
41%
Postfinance
3
38%
SBB CFF FFS
4
38%
Coop
5
37%
Migros
6
37%
Tetra Pak
7
36%
KKL-Luzern
8
35%
Bombardier Transportation
9
35%
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
10
33%
Die Post
10
33%
Schweizerische Nationalbank
12
33%
Oracle
13
32%
Kuoni
14
32%
Swiss Life
15
31%
Alstom
16
30%
Bank Leu
16
30%
Zürcher Kantonalbank
18
29%
Bain & Company
19
29%
Raiffeisen
20
28%
18
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Gender and Age
Gender
Universität St.Gallen
24%
Total
76%
28%
72%
Female
Male
Age
18-19
20-21
0%
2%
8%
6%
22-23
30%
56%
24-25
35%
25%
26-27
17%
10%
28-29
30-31
32-33
34 or older
6%
1%
2%
1%
Universität St.Gallen
2%
Total
STUDENT PROFILE
19
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Area of Study - Business
What is your major(s)/main area(s) of study?
(Please select the one alternative that best describes your specialisation.)
48%
49%
Business Administration
29%
27%
Finance
21%
Marketing
28%
20%
Management
31%
16%
International Business
7%
15%
Economics
28%
13%
Accounting/Auditing/Taxation
25%
11%
12%
Communication studies
7%
Information Management
9%
6%
Public Administration
3%
6%
7%
Other Business
4%
3%
Logistics
Entrepreneurship
Sales
Human Resources Management
1%
5%
1%
2%
Universität St.Gallen
11%
Total
20
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Area of Study – Engineering
What is your major(s)/main area(s) of study?
(Please select the one alternative that best describes your specialisation.)
33%
Computer Science/Information
Technology
28%
33%
Industrial Engineering and
Management
4%
33%
Other Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Aeronautics/Aerospace Engineering
6%
0%
Architecture
6%
Biological Engineering/Biological
Technology
4%
Biology
Chemical Engineering
10%
2%
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
8%
6%
Electrical/Electronic Engineering
Environmental
Science/Environmental Technology
20%
6%
Machine/Mechanical Engineering
Materials Science/Materials
Technology
Mathematics/Physics
15%
6%
Universität St.Gallen
14%
Total
STUDENT PROFILE
21
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Academic Performance and Type of Degree
Please grade your academic results on a scale from 1-10, where 10 represents ‘excellent results’, 5 stands for ‘average’ and
1 means ‘passing’.
35%
31%
29%
20%
19%
17%
10%
10%
8%
5%
5%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1
2
1%
3
1%
1%
4
5
Universität St.Gallen
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Please note that students rated their grades themselves.
What degree/which degrees are you currently pursuing?
3%
Bachelor
32%
1%
Diplom
34%
96%
Master
29%
3%
Other degree
8%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
22
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Additional Academic Degree
Do you study/have you studied another discipline at bachelor´s degree level or equivalent?
Universität St.Gallen
Total
83%
17%
90%
No
10%
Yes
23
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Language Skills
Beside your mother tongue, do you also speak any other languages?
Universität St.Gallen
97%
Total
3%
81%
19%
Yes
No
How well do you speak these langages?
97%
English
79%
31%
French
34%
15%
German
24%
8%
Spanish
5%
2%
Italian
6%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
This chart shows the percentages of respondents speaking these languages very good or fluent.
24
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Experience/Qualifications
Which of the following experiences/qualifications do you have?
(Please choose as many as are applicable.)
Internship, in my home country,
related to my main field of study (at
least for 2 months)
62%
40%
Engagement in student
union/association parallel to my
studies (at least 1 semester)
50%
20%
Part time job, in my home country,
parallel to my studies and related to
my main field of study (at least for 2
months)
43%
35%
Engagement in non student
association/organisation parallel to
studies
42%
30%
41%
University studies abroad (at least 1
semester)
14%
Internship, abroad, related to my
main field of study (at least for 2
months)
31%
11%
Full time job, in my home country,
related to my main field of study (at
least for 2 months)
19%
25%
13%
Apprenticeship
34%
8%
Other
13%
5%
Managing/managed own company
Part time job, abroad, parallel to my
studies and related to my main field
of study (at least for 2 months)
Full time job, abroad, related to my
main field of study (at least for 2
months)
6%
4%
3%
1%
2%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
25
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Personal Characteristics
Which three personal characteristics apply to you the most?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
35%
Analytical
24%
33%
Responsible
35%
32%
Flexible
25%
24%
25%
Ambitious
24%
Efficient
16%
23%
Goal oriented
18%
19%
19%
Team player
17%
15%
Leadership qualities
14%
15%
Hard working
14%
Curious
20%
13%
Creative
15%
12%
12%
Handle stress well
12%
Social
21%
9%
Accurate
16%
8%
Verbal
10%
6%
6%
Entrepreneurial
5%
Enthusiastic
Other
7%
Universität St.Gallen
1%
Total
26
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Preferred Industry
In which industries would you ideally like to work?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
45%
Management consulting
13%
30%
Private/commercial banking
14%
26%
Investment banking
8%
20%
Consumer goods
7%
14%
Academic research
12%
14%
Government/public service
Insurance
8%
14%
4%
14%
Marketing/advertising
16%
14%
Other
6%
9%
Auditing/accounting/taxation
6%
9%
10%
Media/public relations/information
7%
Education/teaching
11%
6%
Power/energy
Transport/logistics
Airline/travel
7%
6%
4%
5%
6%
The chart shows top 15 of 35 response alternatives to this question.
Universität St.Gallen
Total
STUDENT PROFILE
27
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Career Goals
What career goals do you hope to attain within three years of graduating?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
56%
Work with increasingly challenging
tasks
41%
49%
Balance personal life and career
46%
44%
Work internationally
34%
35%
Build a sound financial base
32%
31%
Reach a managerial level
25%
17%
Become a specialist
13%
16%
Manage projects
26%
15%
Influence corporate strategies
14%
10%
Contribute to society
16%
8%
Start a business
7%
4%
Develop new products
21%
3%
Rotate jobs within company
Other
3%
1%
1%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
STUDENT PROFILE
28
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Career Goals – Historical Overview
What career goals do you hope to attain within three years of graduating?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
56%
Work with increasingly challenging
tasks
58%
49%
Balance personal life and career
43%
44%
Work internationally
56%
35%
Build a sound financial base
39%
31%
Reach a managerial level
35%
17%
Become a specialist
8%
16%
Manage projects
13%
15%
Influence corporate strategies
16%
10%
Contribute to society
18%
8%
Start a business
9%
4%
Develop new products
Rotate jobs within company
Other
4%
3%
6%
1%
2%
Universität St.Gallen 2006
Universität St.Gallen 2005
STUDENT PROFILE
29
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Expected Compensation
What annual base salary do you expect at your first job after graduation?
<20000
20000 - 24999
25000 - 29999
30000 - 34999
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
4%
6%
35000 - 39999
40000 - 44999
18%
1%
13%
23%
45000 - 49999
26%
31%
50000 - 54999
55000 - 59999
>59999
22%
17%
6%
21%
8%
Respondents wrote in their salary expectations, which were subsequently divided into categories. Results are shown
in Euro.
Universität St.Gallen
Total
30
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Trainee Programme
Would you like to attend a company trainee programme?
Universität St.Gallen
Total
42%
34%
18%
14%
Yes
40%
53%
No
I don't know
STUDENT PROFILE
31
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
University Satisfaction
How satisfied are you with your university?
53%
Very satisfied
23%
42%
Satisfied
59%
3%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14%
1%
Dissatisfied
4%
1%
Very dissatisfied
1%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
32
STUDENT PROFILE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
University Satisfaction
What are you most satisfied with at your university?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
72%
The reputation of the university
38%
65%
The quality of the educations
46%
44%
The university's contacts with the
business community
16%
30%
The possibility to study abroad
15%
26%
The teachers
35%
23%
The choice of courses
30%
9%
The environment of the university
21%
8%
The student life
23%
6%
The access to service facilities
The administration of the university
Access to boarding/apartments
Other
27%
5%
2%
1%
1%
3%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
MARKET POSITION
33
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
MARKET POSITION
”I think the first step in
achieving an effective
Employer Brand is to have a
clear business strategy and
implement it effectively. You
need to be very clear about
where you need to be…”
(Annette K. Nimzik,
Manager HR Development
Group, RWE)
An important step in building a strong Employer Brand is to
understand the position on the talent market. Getting to know your
own and the recruitment competitors’ status on the market sets
the basic conditions and starting point for the entire branding
process. It is often hard to evaluate one’s own position as an actor
in the employer market. A way to reach a wider understanding in
this area is to use different kinds of positioning measurements. In
this report employer awareness, interest and priority is being
presented.
MARKET POSITION
34
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
The Employer Ranking as a Strategic Tool
The first measurement is used for evaluation of a company’s familiarity on the talent market, i.e. the
employer brand awareness. In this case “being familiar” means that the students have heard of the
company and its specific products and/or services. Based on the number of students that are familiar
(i.e. the respondent ticks in if he/she is not familiar with a specific employer) with a certain employer the
familiarity position can be pinpointed for each company/organisation. By sorting the companies on the
received percentages a familiar ranking list is presented (this ranking list is only presented in the
appendix of this report). In this way each employer gets a chance to see how well known (or unknown)
they are on the employer market. The familiar ranking list provides direct input to the need for media
campaigns and likewise, to better establish the company in the minds of the students.
Once knowing the familiarity on an overarching level, another interesting measurement is to see if the
students would consider working for the specific employer? The students that already have said they
are familiar with a company also tell if they are interested in working for that employer in the future. In
this way the employers can get a good view of the attractiveness among students.
From the number of companies the students would consider working for; five future ideal employers are
picked out. By making an ideal ranking list, the employers can see their positions among the other most
popular companies.
Position diagram
The market position determines the communication strategy. One strategy is to focus on a quite narrow
student group via targeted communication like tailored campaigns and relationship marketing (i.e.
getting a strong ideal employer position). Another way is to combine a quite wide communication
approach and try to get stronger both as a considered and ideal employer.
Condsidered %
Follower
Market Leader
New Entry
Niche Employer
Ideal %
Fig: An upward position to the right is often the ideal situation with high percentages of students both
choosing the employer as an interesting company, as well as an ideal employer. But employers
sometimes choose to focus on a small segment and become a niche-player.
•
•
•
•
Follower – An employer which can be regarded as potential threat to the market leader.
New Entries – A weak position on the talent market with an employer brand that needs to be
strengthened.
Niche employer – Not that well-known employer, but regarded as a top of the line employer
within a narrow and defined target group.
Market leader - An overall strong employer brand that appeals to most students.
MARKET POSITION
35
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
The position measurements described above all show to what extent the students know about a certain
employer and how attractive they think the company is. A different way to measure the position is the
‘potential applicants ranking’, i.e. measuring the students’ intention to really apply for a job. If a student
picks a company as a favourite among five ideal employers, it does not necessarily mean that he/she will
apply for a position with that employer. The potential applicants ranking reveals the position for each
employer based on whether the attracted students also have applied or will apply to them. In this way
the employers can get even more in-depth knowledge of their market position.
While having a great position on the ideal ranking among broad target groups is good for the image in
general, the ‘apply ranking’ on the other hand should mainly be high among the targeted students.
How to use position measurements
Different position measurements help providing employers with useful information in several key areas in
the employer branding process. Below are a couple examples of the useful areas of these evaluation
tools.
Benchmarking
This kind of information gives immediate feedback on the relative market position in comparison to their
recruitment competitors on the market. Through knowledge of the competitors position in relation to the
own situation, each employer is able to make clear benchmarks against not only companies within the
same industry, but also against successful companies in other attractive industries. Students do not
necessarily choose industry before choosing their ideal employers. By studying the ‘recruitment
competitors ranking’ the company gets valuable insight in what companies it competes against in the
war for talent. Combining knowledge of the market position and studies of the perceived image of each
competitor, provides a very powerful tool when it comes to the strategic employer branding decisions of
their own company.
Defines the start of the communication process
The current position defines the framework of the employer communication plan. It gives information on
which competitors are strong and which are not. Furthermore, it tells which of the recruitment
competitors have been most successful and provides information on the distance between them.
Tracking success
The ranking of the employers offer the necessary means to monitor changes over time and to set goals
for the future. Benchmarking against the recruitment competitors and aiming for better positions on the
market also often help raise motivation within the entire company. Today many employers use the
position measurement as one important evaluation tool in the overall scorecard of the company.
Together with typical financial keys and softer measures such as employee satisfaction indexes, the
employer position is regarded as an equal important key indicator of a company’s success.
Target group position
All the described areas and measurements relates to the overall market position, which indeed provides
an important strategic knowledge. That information is based on the attractiveness on the market, and
the explicit view of the “attracted students”. An equally important perspective is the opinions and
perceptions of the ideal employees, i.e. the students a company wants to attract, recruit and retain. By
defining the own target student, the market position within a specific narrow target group can be
provided. For example, the market position can be showed among female high achieving students at
certain schools. The immediate use of defining the target group in this way can be shown using the
“potential applicants ranking”. With such an approach it will clearly show how likely it is that the “most
wanted student profile” will apply to a specific employer (more in depth questions will also reveal why or
why not).
For more details regarding the method connected to the ranking lists, please see the “Method”
chapter.
MARKET POSITION
36
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Rankings - Top 50 Business
Below is the ranking list of companies that students perceive as ideal employers. This list shows the Top-50 highest-ranked
employers among students during 2006, compared with last year’s ranking.
Ranking
2006
Ranking
2005
Ranking
2006
Ranking
2005
UBS
1
1
Roche
26
30
Nestlé
2
2
Bank Julius Bär
27
27
Credit Suisse
3
3
JPMorgan
28
42
PricewaterhouseCoopers
4
4
Goldman Sachs
29
47
L'Oréal
5
6
Microsoft
30
22
Swatch Group
6
18
KKL-Luzern
31
-
McKinsey & Company
7
12
Raiffeisen
32
34
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
8
9
Unilever
33
38
Novartis
9
7
Swiss Re
34
26
Coca-Cola
10
-
Johnson & Johnson
35
33
Ernst & Young
11
5
Victorinox
36
-
IKEA
12
8
Siemens
37
28
Procter & Gamble
13
10
HSBC
38
41
Schweizerische Nationalbank
14
24
Merrill Lynch
39
68
Kuoni
15
23
Zürcher Kantonalbank
40
50
Bundesverwaltung
16
11
Orange
41
39
The Boston Consulting Group
17
40
Postfinance
42
45
Migros
18
14
Kühne & Nagel
43
-
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
19
-
Deutsche Bank
44
58
KPMG
20
21
Hewlett-Packard
45
25
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
21
29
Richmont Group
46
-
Swisscom
22
13
Morgan Stanley
47
70
IBM
23
17
MasterFoods
48
59
SBB CFF FFS
24
15
Kraft foods
49
62
ABB
25
19
Coop
50
52
Company/Org.
Company/Org.
The complete ranking list can be found in the appendix, at the end of the report.
MARKET POSITION
37
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Rankings - Top 50 Engineering & Science
Below is the ranking list of companies that students perceive as ideal employers. This list shows the Top-50 highest-ranked
employers among students during 2006, compared with last year’s ranking.
Ranking
2006
Ranking
2005
Ranking
2006
Ranking
2005
ABB
1
1
Victorinox
26
-
Siemens
2
5
Migros
27
27
IBM
3
2
Schindler
28
39
Nestlé
4
4
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
29
50
Novartis
5
3
Credit Suisse
30
26
SBB CFF FFS
6
9
Bayer
31
37
Pilatus Aircraft
7
14
Schweizer Armee
32
52
Leica Geosystems
8
22
Sulzer
33
56
Sun Microsystems
9
15
Oracle
34
-
Roche
10
6
Unaxis
35
32
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
11
10
IKEA
36
31
Swisscom
12
8
Orange
37
38
Cisco Systems
13
11
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
38
20
Hewlett-Packard
14
13
Ascom
39
30
Swatch Group
15
29
Syngenta
40
41
UBS
16
18
Tetra Pak
41
46
Hilti
17
19
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
42
-
Alstom
18
17
Oerlikon Contraves
43
35
Bundesverwaltung
19
28
Holcim
44
48
Ericsson
20
24
L'Oréal
45
45
Philips
21
49
McKinsey & Company
46
43
Bosch
22
25
Swiss Re
47
54
Serono
23
12
DuPont
48
59
Microsoft
24
16
Danone
49
42
Bombardier Transportation
25
-
Coca-Cola
50
-
Company/Org.
Company/Org.
The complete ranking list can be found in the appendix, at the end of the report.
38
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Ranking, High Achievers - Business
Below is the ranking list of which companies high-performing students perceive as ideal employers (for
more information on the definition ‘High Achievers’, see section ‘Student Profile’.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
UBS
1
33,33%
1
Credit Suisse
2
22,48%
3
Nestlé
3
17,44%
2
McKinsey & Company
4
16,67%
7
The Boston Consulting Group
5
13,57%
17
PricewaterhouseCoopers
6
13,18%
4
Novartis
7
11,63%
9
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
8
11,24%
8
Bundesverwaltung
9
10,85%
16
Goldman Sachs
10
10,08%
29
Coca-Cola
11
9,30%
10
Ernst & Young
11
9,30%
11
Procter & Gamble
13
8,91%
13
L'Oréal
14
8,14%
5
SBB CFF FFS
15
7,75%
24
KPMG
16
7,36%
20
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
16
7,36%
19
Migros
16
7,36%
18
Schweizerische Nationalbank
16
7,36%
14
Swatch Group
16
7,36%
6
39
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Ranking, High Achievers - Engineering & Science
Below is the ranking list of which companies high-performing students perceive as ideal employers (for
more information on the definition ‘High Achievers’, see section ‘Student Profile’.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
IBM
1
25,51%
3
ABB
2
18,43%
1
Siemens
3
18,18%
2
Novartis
4
15,15%
5
Sun Microsystems
5
12,63%
9
Nestlé
6
12,37%
4
UBS
7
11,62%
16
Cisco Systems
8
10,86%
13
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
8
10,86%
11
Pilatus Aircraft
8
10,86%
7
SBB CFF FFS
11
10,35%
6
Roche
12
10,10%
10
Hewlett-Packard
13
9,09%
14
Leica Geosystems
14
8,84%
8
Philips
15
8,59%
21
Bundesverwaltung
16
7,83%
19
McKinsey & Company
17
7,32%
46
Microsoft
17
7,32%
24
Swisscom
19
7,07%
12
Swatch Group
20
6,82%
15
40
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Ranking, First Choice - Business
This table shows the companies that the students most frequently selected as their first choice ideal
employer. In the questionnaire, the students are asked to rank their top 5 ideal employers.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
UBS
1
11,52%
1
Nestlé
2
6,60%
2
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
3
4,90%
8
Credit Suisse
4
4,80%
3
PricewaterhouseCoopers
5
4,35%
4
McKinsey & Company
6
3,70%
7
L'Oréal
7
3,69%
5
Swatch Group
8
3,29%
6
Bundesverwaltung
9
2,62%
16
Novartis
10
2,42%
9
Migros
11
2,30%
18
Schweizerische Nationalbank
12
2,21%
14
Ernst & Young
13
2,05%
11
Kuoni
14
2,02%
15
IKEA
15
1,86%
12
Procter & Gamble
16
1,81%
13
SBB CFF FFS
17
1,65%
24
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
18
1,62%
19
Roche
19
1,59%
26
The Boston Consulting Group
20
1,56%
17
41
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Ranking, First Choice - Engineering & Science
This table shows the companies that the students most frequently selected as their first choice ideal
employer. In the questionnaire, the students are asked to rank their top 5 ideal employers.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
IBM
1
6,86%
3
ABB
2
6,54%
1
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
3
5,19%
11
Novartis
4
4,61%
5
Siemens
5
4,38%
2
Nestlé
6
4,35%
4
Pilatus Aircraft
7
4,34%
7
SBB CFF FFS
8
3,54%
6
Leica Geosystems
9
3,47%
8
Cisco Systems
10
2,73%
13
Serono
11
2,60%
23
Swisscom
12
2,53%
12
Roche
13
2,46%
10
Sun Microsystems
14
2,38%
9
Hilti
15
2,17%
17
IKEA
16
1,86%
36
Swatch Group
17
1,77%
15
Bundesverwaltung
18
1,75%
19
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
19
1,73%
29
UBS
20
1,72%
16
42
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Potential Applicants Ranking - Business
The table below lists ideal employers which have the best ratio of students who also have, or will, apply
to these companies.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
UBS
1
28,55%
1
Credit Suisse
2
18,80%
3
Nestlé
3
15,26%
2
PricewaterhouseCoopers
4
10,70%
4
Procter & Gamble
5
8,55%
13
L'Oréal
6
8,19%
5
Novartis
7
7,87%
9
McKinsey & Company
8
7,68%
7
Ernst & Young
9
7,27%
11
KPMG
10
6,10%
20
Swatch Group
11
6,07%
6
Kuoni
12
5,07%
15
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
13
5,04%
8
Swisscom
14
4,99%
22
Roche
15
4,97%
26
Bundesverwaltung
16
4,86%
16
Migros
17
4,84%
18
IKEA
18
4,73%
12
The Boston Consulting Group
19
4,65%
17
IBM
20
4,33%
23
43
MARKET POSITION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Potential Applicants Ranking - Engineering & Science
The table below lists ideal employers which have the best ratio of students who also have, or will, apply
to these companies.
Ranking
Percent
Ideal ranking
ABB
1
16,81%
1
Nestlé
2
12,69%
4
IBM
3
12,48%
3
Novartis
4
12,44%
5
Siemens
5
11,22%
2
Swisscom
6
10,20%
12
Roche
7
9,50%
10
Pilatus Aircraft
8
7,48%
7
Alstom
9
7,26%
18
SBB CFF FFS
10
6,88%
6
UBS
11
6,86%
16
Leica Geosystems
12
6,73%
8
Microsoft
13
6,34%
24
Sun Microsystems
14
5,80%
9
Cisco Systems
15
5,04%
13
Serono
16
5,03%
23
Credit Suisse
17
4,52%
30
Hilti
18
4,39%
17
Swatch Group
19
4,20%
15
Syngenta
20
3,70%
40
MARKET POSITION
44
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ideal Employer Rankings - Universität St.Gallen
Below is the ranking list of companies that students perceive as ideal employers. This list shows the Top-20 highest-ranked
employers among students during 2006, compared with last year’s ranking.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Percent 2005
UBS
1
33%
1
28%
Credit Suisse
2
24%
2
21%
The Boston Consulting Group
3
21%
9
9%
McKinsey & Company
4
21%
3
19%
Goldman Sachs
5
15%
14
7%
Nestlé
6
14%
4
15%
Bundesverwaltung
7
12%
6
12%
Swatch Group
7
12%
67
1%
Bain & Company
9
11%
18
6%
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
9
11%
9
9%
Novartis
9
11%
8
9%
PricewaterhouseCoopers
12
10%
5
15%
JPMorgan
13
8%
22
4%
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
13
8%
-
-
L'Oréal
13
8%
32
3%
Schweizerische Nationalbank
13
8%
21
4%
Booz Allen Hamilton
17
8%
18
6%
Roland Berger
17
8%
40
2%
Ernst & Young
19
7%
7
12%
Morgan Stanley
19
7%
32
3%
MARKET POSITION
45
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Potential Applicants Ranking - Universität St.Gallen
The table below lists ideal employers which have the best ratio of students who also have, or will, apply
to these companies.
Ranking
Percent
UBS
1
26%
Credit Suisse
2
22%
McKinsey & Company
3
18%
The Boston Consulting Group
4
14%
Goldman Sachs
5
13%
Bain & Company
6
11%
Nestlé
6
11%
Bundesverwaltung
8
8%
Booz Allen Hamilton
9
7%
Procter & Gamble
9
7%
JPMorgan
11
6%
Roland Berger
11
6%
Ernst & Young
13
5%
Morgan Stanley
13
5%
Roche
13
5%
Accenture
16
4%
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz)
16
4%
KPMG
16
4%
L'Oréal
16
4%
Merrill Lynch
16
4%
EMPLOYER IMAGE
46
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
EMPLOYER IMAGE
“Two things that will not bring
success are thinking only
about the employer branding
strategy in the short-term and
making the image different to
the company’s established
corporate image. An
Employer Brand has to be
clear, unique and special, but
above all, it has to be true.”
(Lars Gejrot, Head of Human
Resources, IKEA)
An Employer Brand consists of values, associations and offerings
that characterize the perceptions of the company as an employer.
As in consumer branding, the characteristics forming the brand
image can be influenced through communication with the target
groups, in this case the students you want to attract, recruit and
retain. The foundation of the communication content is the
Employer Value Proposition (EVP), i.e. the core of a company’s
offerings to their target groups.
The following chapter will give you an understanding of the
students’ preferences and the company’s current employer image.
Combined with the information from previous chapters, these
factors will help employers develop an EVP that leads to controlled,
clear and consistent communication.
EMPLOYER IMAGE
47
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
The Basic Contents of the Employer Value Proposition
The starting point of defining the employer core values is to identify the potential ideal employees, i.e.
the target groups. What types of potential employees does the company want to attract, recruit and
retain?
Once deciding on the target group, the employer must find out what values and factors triggers and
attracts this group. What should an ideal employer offer and be associated with in order to be the
employer of choice for this specific target group?
A sound and logical start is to make sure the company fulfils the basic needs (i.e. the hygiene factors) of
the targeted student group. This research should focus on what is regarded as attractive and important
on an overarching level, when choosing a future ideal employer. It is also possible to go more in-depth
into related areas like preferred compensation package etc.
Finding out what factors are considered necessary, the basic foundation of the EVP is stated. Exploring
those aspects is necessary in order to keep up with and benchmark against other recruitment
competitors on the market. But this is not enough to generate a great core value message. These
factors/values must be defined, but they do not help in differentiating the employer in comparison to
competitors!
To find the employer strengths
The next crucial step in helping the employer finding differentiating values is to point out their own
important strengths. By comparing the important aspects (most attractive offers and associations, i.e.
image factors) stated by the target group, with the perceived image of the own company, strengths and
weaknesses can be addressed. In other words, by visualizing to what extent the students’ expectations
and the company image matches (”synchronization of image”), values and characteristics that should be
improved and emphasized can be pinpointed.
Showing the unique aspects of the employer
Once the strengths are visualized it is time to pick out the factors/values that are both attractive and
differentiating compared to the surrounding competitive environment. The defined core values should
then be matched with the business strategy and other values and visions. One way to make the
matching process work in an often diverse and multicultural business environment is to “think global and
act local”, i.e. to define an overarching EVP and then slightly adapt that core message to the different
local markets, without loosing the core values.
EMPLOYER IMAGE
48
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Combining three perspectives
In order to build a strong and consistent Employer Brand, defining the core values based on the external
view of the target group is not enough. Building an Employer Brand is a long term building process, and
must also include the top management view. Incorporating the view of the current employees is also
important. Measuring the internal perspective is a way not to accidentally generate a mismatch between
what the employer promises, and what can actually be delivered.
Taking all three perspectives into consideration a balanced message can be based on:
•
Image – The current perception and relative strengths of the employer
•
Profile – What an employer would like to communicate
•
Identity – What an employer can communicate
Fig.: The IPI – model (Image Profile Identity)
Profile
The desired profile
and corporate
strategy
Identity
The internal image,
career and
opportunities your
company can offer
Image
The external view and
position of your company
EVP
By combining the company/management vision and strategy, target groups’ needs and wants and the
employee perspective, the employer is able to clearly define its core message!
49
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Attractive Employer Qualities
Which of the following would you find most attractive if offered by an employer?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
45%
International career opportunities
32%
39%
40%
Variety of assignments
29%
Competitive compensation
24%
29%
Inspiring colleagues
26%
26%
Increasingly challenging tasks
23%
23%
Flexible working hours
31%
19%
Good career reference
12%
18%
Rapid career advancement
10%
16%
Trainee programme
12%
14%
Managerial responsibility
18%
12%
Internal education
17%
12%
Project-based work
20%
6%
6%
Mentorships
4%
Secure employment
Other
20%
2%
1%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
50
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Attractive Employer Qualities – Historical Overview
Which of the following would you find most attractive if offered by an employer?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
45%
International career opportunities
50%
39%
Variety of assignments
35%
29%
Competitive compensation
33%
29%
Inspiring colleagues
25%
26%
Increasingly challenging tasks
25%
23%
Flexible working hours
18%
19%
Good career reference
32%
16%
Trainee programme
13%
14%
Managerial responsibility
34%
12%
Internal education
25%
12%
Project-based work
Secure employment
14%
4%
8%
Universität St.Gallen 2006
Universität St.Gallen 2005
51
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Important Decision Factors
Which of the following do you find most important when you select your future ideal employer?
(‘Please choose a maximum of three alternatives’)
47%
Exciting products/services
55%
33%
Dynamic organisation
27%
32%
Market success
18%
29%
Strong corporate culture
19%
23%
Good/confidence-inspiring
management
32%
21%
Innovation
36%
21%
Diverse/multicultural employees
14%
17%
Corporate social responsibility
25%
16%
Good reputation at my school
9%
15%
High ethical standards
15%
14%
Recruiting only the best students
3%
9%
Financial strength
13%
6%
Equality between the sexes
Other
13%
2%
1%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
52
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Compensation Package
Apart from base salary, which of the following would you most prefer in your compensation package?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
73%
Performance-related bonus
43%
72%
Company-paid formal education
66%
35%
Paid overtime
52%
34%
Retirement plan
34%
16%
Extra vacation/personal days
21%
16%
Healthcare benefits
25%
16%
Profit sharing
17%
12%
Stock options
7%
10%
Company car
10%
1%
Other
2%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
53
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Employer’s Perceived Characteristics
What do you associate with these companies?
(Please choose as many alternatives as are applicable.)
74%
Exciting products/services
65%
70%
Market success
62%
63%
Financial strength
56%
58%
Diverse/multicultural employees
42%
57%
Good reputation at my school
39%
53%
Dynamic organisation
37%
49%
49%
Innovation
46%
Strong corporate culture
40%
46%
Good/confidence-inspiring
management
42%
46%
Recruiting only the best students
22%
39%
Equality between the sexes
29%
36%
Competitive working environment
Excessive overtime
24%
33%
17%
32%
Corporate social responsibility
28%
27%
25%
High ethical standards
Conservative working environment
14%
13%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
EMPLOYER IMAGE
54
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Employer’s Perceived Offerings
What do you believe these companies offer?
(Please choose as many alternatives as applicable.)
76%
Good career reference
70%
72%
International career opportunities
60%
71%
Increasingly challenging tasks
52%
67%
Variety of assignments
55%
62%
Internal education
55%
60%
Competitive compensation
49%
60%
Inspiring colleagues
39%
55%
Project-based work
52%
47%
Trainee programme
33%
45%
Rapid career advancement
28%
44%
Managerial responsibility
Mentorships
Secure employment
Flexible working hours
42%
30%
20%
30%
35%
27%
32%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
55
EMPLOYER IMAGE
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Apply to the Ideal Employer
The diagram below shows the share of your students that will, or have applied to your company or your
competitors.
Have you, or will you, apply to these companies?
12%
Yes, I have applied
5%
32%
Yes, I will apply
23%
38%
Yes, I might apply
35%
8%
No
13%
9%
I don't know
24%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
If you replied ’No’ or ‘Yes, I might apply’ for any of the companies on the previous question, please
answer why you will not apply, or why you are not sure that you will apply?
50%
Other
42%
24%
I don’t have enough work experience
34%
14%
I don’t know
17%
I don’t think I will make it through
their recruitment process
13%
10%
11%
My grades are not good enough
7%
I don’t have the necessary areas of
study
10%
14%
I don’t think I will live up to their
demands as an employee
They are not recruiting right now
They do not currently operate in my
country
7%
9%
1%
5%
1%
2%
They are not recruiting students
from my school
They don’t recruit in my home
country
4%
Universität St.Gallen
1%
Please note that if less than 30 respondents have answered ‘No’, only the total results will show.
Total
COMMUNICATION
56
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
COMMUNICATION
“Career fairs, technical talks,
and presentations are some
of my favourite on-campus
activities. We strive to be top
of mind for people and we
always look for opportunistic
ways to do PR” – (Kristen
Roby Dimlow, Senior Director
of College and MBA Staffing,
Microsoft)
After having developed the company’s Employer Value Proposition
it is time to start communicating with the target group. The aim of
this part of the report is to provide your company with an
understanding of which channels to use for your employer branding
communication. No matter how thoroughly your company has
examined the talent market and no matter how carefully developed
the Employer Value Proposition is. Without the right communication
execution you won’t be able to reach your employer branding
objectives.
57
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Choosing the right Channels
The employer value proposition needs to be communicated in a planned and reasoned fashion, in order
to affect the attitudes and perceptions of your target groups. The choice of communication should be
guided by the market position and by what you want to achieve with the communication. Different
channels should be used for different purposes and different types of communication content.
There are three basic types of channels suitable for different communication aims.
Brand building channels
•
Builds Employer Brand awareness and affects attitudes towards the brand
•
Only allow for somewhat targeted communication
Targeted channels
•
Suitable for communication aimed directly to your target groups
•
The content of the communication can be tailored to the target audience
•
Affects attitudes towards the Employer Brand, i.e. increases the target groups interest in
working for your company
Relationship building channels
•
Channels used for building and strengthening the relationship with the target groups, hence
making you the ideal employer in the eyes of the targeted students
•
Relationship building channels are often suitable to use for targeted communication, e.g.
inviting students with the right profile to a company visit
You should carefully consider the position of your Employer Brand before choosing the channels. For
example, if you are unknown, brand building channels reaching a great part of the talent market should
be in your portfolio. If you are well-known but misunderstood, both brand building and targeted channels
should be used.
Also remember that the choice of channels will in itself affect your image and differentiate you from your
recruitment competitors. For instance, a creative choice might help you position your company as a
modern and innovative player in an industry perceived as old-fashioned. Creative ways of
communicating also tend to create strong word-of-mouth effects, which is a cheap and very effective
way of strengthening your Employer Brand.
In all, lack of knowledge about efficient communication may be both extremely costly and at worst miss
the target group entirely. Wrong data simply leads to investment in the wrong channels.
Cost /
Contact
Employer brand
awareness
Familiar
Employer brand
attractiveness
Considered
Dinner/Party
Employer brand
position
Ideal
Internships
Company visit/
Event off campus
Seminars
Career fairs
Seminars
Conferences
Brochures
Company
website
Advertisement
in print media/
on the Internet
Alumni/colleagues
Interviews
Word-of-mouth
(from co-workers,
alumnis. former
Interns etc.)
Quality /
Contact
Fig: The model above is used for decision making on choice of communication channels based on objective and cost
per contact.
58
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Preferred Sources of Information
How would you prefer to gather information about potential employers?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable.)
Acquaintances employed by the
company
76%
70%
68%
Company websites
56%
67%
Internships/work placements
54%
63%
Company presentations on campus
39%
55%
Fellow students
35%
49%
Career fairs
34%
Articles in newspapers and
magazines
31%
43%
Company visits/company events off
campus
29%
38%
27%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
12%
26%
29%
Part-time job
23%
Career websites
19%
Job opening advertisement on the
Internet
20%
35%
Career services department at
university
19%
26%
18%
Company recruitment brochures
24%
14%
17%
Writing your thesis
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on the Internet
10%
Job opening advertisement in print
media
10%
16%
27%
7%
6%
Business game/case competition
Corporate/employer image
advertisements in print media
6%
11%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on TV
3%
Product promotional material
3%
Other
7%
7%
1%
1%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
59
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Actual Sources of Information
How have you mainly learned about these companies?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable.)
58%
Company websites
40%
Articles in newspapers and
magazines
46%
58%
38%
Company presentations on campus
12%
36%
Career fairs
13%
Acquaintances employed by the
company
23%
22%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on the Internet
22%
19%
19%
Fellow students
12%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements in print media
18%
20%
15%
Career websites
8%
13%
Other
16%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on TV
12%
21%
11%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
5%
Job opening advertisement on the
Internet
9%
12%
9%
Company recruitment brochures
6%
7%
Internships/work placements
5%
6%
Product promotional material
13%
Company visits/company events off
campus
5%
5%
Job opening advertisement in print
media
5%
Career services department at
university
5%
5%
Business game/case competition
Writing your thesis
Part-time job
8%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
Universität St.Gallen
Total
60
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Actual vs. Preferred Sources of Information - Universität St.Gallen
How would you prefer to gather information about potential employers?
How have you mainly learned about these companies?
Acquaintances employed by the company
76%
23%
Company websites
58%
Internships/work placements
67%
7%
Company presentations on campus
Fellow students
55%
19%
Career fairs
36%
31%
Articles in newspapers and magazines
5%
26%
2%
19%
5%
10%
5%
22%
10%
7%
4%
6%
Corporate/employer image advertisements in print media
Other
14%
3%
Job opening advertisement in print media
Product promotional material
18%
9%
Corporate/employer image advertisements on the Internet
Corporate/employer image advertisements on TV
20%
9%
Company recruitment brochures
Business game/case competition
23%
15%
Job opening advertisement on the Internet
Writing your thesis
46%
27%
11%
Career websites
Career services department at university
49%
29%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
Part-time job
63%
38%
Company visits/company events off campus
68%
3%
18%
12%
3%
6%
1%
Preferred sources of information
13%
Actual sources of information
61
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Actual vs. Preferred Sources of Information - Total
How would you prefer to gather information about potential employers?
How have you mainly learned about these companies?
Acquaintances employed by the
company
70%
22%
56%
Company websites
40%
54%
Internships/work placements
5%
Articles in newspapers and
magazines
43%
58%
Company presentations on
campus
39%
12%
Company visits/company events
off campus
38%
5%
35%
Fellow students
12%
Job opening advertisement on the
Internet
12%
35%
34%
Career fairs
Part-time job
13%
29%
3%
Job opening advertisement in print
media
27%
8%
Career services department at
university
26%
5%
24%
Company recruitment brochures
6%
19%
Career websites
Writing your thesis
8%
17%
2%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on the Internet
16%
19%
12%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
5%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements in print media
11%
20%
7%
Product promotional material
13%
Corporate/employer image
advertisements on TV
Business game/case competition
Other
7%
21%
6%
3%
Preferred sources of information
1%
16%
Actual sources of information
62
COMMUNICATION
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
PARTICIPATING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Number of
responses
Ecole d'Ingénieurs du Canton de Vaud
(EIVD)
Ecole d'ingenieurs et d'architectes de
Fribourg
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL)
214
58
177
Number of
responses
Hochschule für Wirtschaft Luzern - FH
Zentralschweiz
Hochschule für Wirtschaft, Verwaltung und
Soziale Arbeit (HW
Hochschule Technik + Architektur Luzern
(HTA) - FH Zentralsc
105
163
191
ETH Zürich
539
Université de Fribourg
130
FH Aargau Nordwestschweiz
92
Université de Genève
99
Haute École Valaisanne (HEV)
80
Université de Lausanne
47
HEC Lausanne
62
Universität Basel
107
52
Universität Bern
383
66
Universität St.Gallen
145
112
Universität Zürich
62
37
Zürcher Hochschule Winterthur
337
85
Other
76
Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Holz
(HSB) - Berner FH
Hochschule für Technik Buchs (NTB) - FH
Ostschweiz
Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil (HSR) FH Ostschweiz
Hochschule für Technik und Informatik (HTI)
- Berner FH
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Chur
(HTW) - FH Ostsch
Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und
Soziale Arbeit St.Gal
169
The table above only shows number of respondents (all fields of study) for each university with 30
respondents or more. The rest of the respondents are aggregated under ”Other”.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
63
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
64
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Overall Survey Results
Age
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
18-19
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
20-21
11%
7%
9%
7%
8%
22-23
31%
29%
27%
33%
30%
24-25
35%
36%
36%
35%
35%
26-27
14%
18%
17%
16%
17%
28-29
4%
6%
5%
6%
6%
30-31
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
32-33
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
34 or older
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
Average
24
25
24
24
24
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
100%
-
38%
19%
28%
-
100%
62%
81%
72%
Gender
Female
Male
APPENDIX
65
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What is your major(s)/main area(s) of study?
Female
Male
Business
Total
Accounting/Auditing/Taxation
21%
23%
26%
25%
Business Administration
50%
59%
52%
49%
Communication studies
16%
11%
12%
12%
Economics
25%
26%
29%
28%
Entrepreneurship
3%
4%
5%
5%
Finance
17%
27%
28%
27%
Human Resources Management
11%
8%
11%
11%
Information Management
5%
11%
9%
9%
International Business
5%
6%
7%
7%
Logistics
2%
3%
3%
3%
Management
24%
26%
32%
31%
Marketing
27%
24%
30%
28%
Public Administration
3%
2%
3%
3%
Sales
1%
1%
2%
2%
Other Business
9%
5%
4%
7%
APPENDIX
66
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What is your major(s)/main area(s) of study?
Female
Male
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Aeronautics/Aerospace Engineering
0%
1%
0%
0%
Architecture
9%
4%
4%
6%
Biological Engineering/Biological Technology
8%
2%
4%
4%
Biology
19%
6%
10%
10%
Chemical Engineering
3%
1%
2%
2%
Chemistry
13%
5%
9%
8%
Civil Engineering
4%
7%
6%
6%
Computer Science/Information Technology
14%
34%
29%
28%
Electrical/Electronic Engineering
3%
21%
21%
20%
Environmental Science/Environmental
Technology
15%
6%
6%
6%
Industrial Engineering and Management
2%
5%
4%
4%
Machine/Mechanical Engineering
5%
16%
15%
15%
Materials Science/Materials Technology
2%
4%
6%
6%
Mathematics/Physics
14%
15%
15%
14%
Petroleum Engineering
2%
0%
1%
1%
Process Technology
3%
3%
5%
4%
-
1%
2%
2%
Telecommunications
2%
10%
10%
10%
Other Engineering/Natural Sciences/IT
12%
4%
6%
6%
Pulp-/Paper-/Wood Technology
67
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What degree are you currently pursuing?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Bachelor
32%
27%
43%
24%
32%
Diplom
31%
35%
19%
46%
34%
Master
34%
36%
36%
23%
29%
Other degree
6%
7%
5%
11%
8%
When do you expect to graduate with this degree/degrees?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
2011 or later
3%
3%
4%
2%
3%
2010
5%
3%
4%
4%
4%
2009
9%
8%
9%
6%
7%
2008
23%
23%
21%
22%
22%
2007
28%
32%
26%
33%
30%
2006
31%
31%
36%
31%
33%
2005
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Do you study/have you studied another discipline at bachlor´s degree level or equivalent?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Yes
12%
10%
7%
10%
10%
No
88%
90%
93%
90%
90%
68
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Please grade your academic results on a scale from 1 – 10, where 10 represents ’excellent results’, 5 stands for
’average’ and 1 means ’passing’.
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
1
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
4
4%
5%
4%
5%
5%
5
22%
18%
18%
20%
19%
6
18%
16%
17%
17%
17%
7
29%
28%
32%
27%
29%
8
19%
21%
20%
20%
20%
9
5%
6%
4%
6%
5%
10
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
6
7
7
6
6
Average
Beside your mother tongue, do you also speak any of the following languages? (Very good or fluent)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
English
83%
82%
85%
73%
79%
French
39%
34%
32%
36%
34%
German
19%
22%
22%
26%
24%
Italian
5%
5%
6%
5%
6%
Spanish
8%
4%
6%
4%
5%
69
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Which of the following experiences/qualifications do you have?
(Please choose as many as are applicable.)
Apprenticeship
Engagement in non student
association/organisation parallel to studies
Engagement in student union/association
parallel to my studies (at least 1 semester)
Full time job, abroad, related to my main
field of study (at least for 2 months)
Full time job, in my home country, related
to my main field of study (at least for 2
months)
Internship, abroad, related to my main field
of study (at least for 2 months)
Internship, in my home country, related to
my main field of study (at least for 2
months)
Managing/managed own company
Part time job, abroad, parallel to my studies
and related to my main field of study (at
least for 2 months)
Part time job, in my home country, parallel
to my studies and related to my main field
of study (at least for 2 months)
University studies abroad (at least 1
semester)
Other
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
29%
33%
31%
37%
34%
30%
34%
29%
31%
30%
23%
21%
25%
17%
20%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
19%
26%
26%
24%
25%
13%
11%
12%
11%
11%
45%
40%
44%
37%
40%
2%
7%
5%
6%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
40%
36%
41%
29%
35%
17%
14%
20%
10%
14%
17%
12%
13%
13%
13%
70
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Which three personal characteristics apply to you the most?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Accurate
15%
17%
12%
18%
16%
Ambitious
26%
24%
28%
22%
25%
Analytical
18%
29%
24%
25%
24%
Creative
17%
15%
14%
16%
15%
Curious
21%
19%
16%
23%
20%
Efficient
19%
16%
17%
15%
16%
Enthusiastic
9%
6%
6%
7%
7%
Entrepreneurial
3%
7%
7%
5%
6%
Flexible
23%
25%
26%
25%
25%
Goal oriented
16%
18%
19%
17%
18%
Handle stress well
9%
12%
11%
11%
12%
Hard working
19%
14%
15%
16%
15%
Leadership qualities
7%
17%
18%
13%
15%
Responsible
46%
32%
35%
35%
35%
Social
23%
18%
19%
21%
21%
Team player
17%
20%
19%
20%
19%
Verbal
9%
10%
12%
8%
10%
Other
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
71
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
In which industries would you ideally like to work?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives.)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Academic research
14%
14%
7%
16%
12%
Aerospace
4%
15%
3%
20%
12%
Airline/travel
10%
5%
11%
2%
6%
Auditing/accounting/taxation
7%
6%
14%
1%
6%
Automotive
2%
9%
4%
10%
7%
Biotechnology
9%
6%
2%
13%
8%
Chemical/Petroleum
4%
3%
1%
5%
3%
Computer hardware
1%
6%
1%
8%
5%
Computer software
4%
14%
2%
17%
10%
Construction
6%
7%
2%
9%
7%
Consumer electronics
0%
5%
1%
6%
4%
Consumer goods
12%
6%
15%
1%
7%
Education/teaching
16%
9%
8%
13%
11%
Engineering consulting
2%
8%
1%
10%
6%
Engineering/manufacturing
5%
17%
1%
28%
16%
Environmental/conservation
17%
9%
4%
15%
10%
Government/public service
12%
7%
11%
4%
8%
Healthcare/pharmaceutical
14%
6%
6%
12%
9%
Hotel/restaurant/tourism
12%
3%
11%
1%
6%
Insurance
6%
4%
6%
2%
4%
Internet/e-commerce
3%
8%
5%
7%
6%
Investment banking
4%
8%
16%
1%
8%
IT consulting/data services
3%
9%
4%
9%
7%
Management consulting
12%
13%
25%
4%
13%
Marketing/advertising
25%
12%
33%
4%
16%
Media/public relations/information
17%
7%
17%
4%
10%
Metals
1%
3%
1%
4%
2%
Non-profit
10%
4%
7%
4%
6%
Power/energy
4%
9%
3%
11%
7%
Private/commercial banking
14%
15%
30%
3%
14%
Pulp/paper/forestry
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Retail
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
Telecommunications
4%
11%
6%
12%
9%
Transport/logistics
3%
4%
5%
3%
4%
Other
9%
5%
6%
6%
6%
72
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What career goals do you hope to attain within three years of graduating?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Balance personal life and career
53%
45%
44%
47%
46%
Become a specialist
11%
15%
10%
16%
13%
Build a sound financial base
34%
31%
33%
31%
32%
Contribute to society
20%
16%
13%
18%
16%
Develop new products
11%
23%
7%
33%
21%
Influence corporate strategies
12%
13%
19%
10%
14%
Manage projects
26%
24%
21%
29%
26%
Reach a managerial level
17%
27%
34%
18%
25%
Rotate jobs within company
4%
3%
6%
1%
3%
Start a business
4%
8%
8%
5%
7%
Work internationally
36%
34%
40%
30%
34%
Work with increasingly challenging tasks
53%
40%
47%
36%
41%
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
What annual base salary do you expect at your first job after graduation?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
<20000
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
20000 - 24999
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
25000 - 29999
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
30000 - 34999
6%
3%
2%
5%
4%
35000 - 39999
26%
15%
13%
20%
18%
40000 - 44999
11%
11%
10%
15%
13%
45000 - 49999
23%
25%
22%
30%
26%
50000 - 54999
18%
25%
27%
18%
22%
55000 - 59999
4%
7%
9%
3%
6%
>59999
5%
11%
12%
6%
8%
Average
44 138
48 359
48 885
45 353
46 746
73
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
How many hours would you expect to work for this company?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
<35
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
35-39
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
40-45
51%
42%
36%
52%
45%
46-49
24%
24%
24%
23%
24%
50-54
13%
19%
22%
15%
18%
55-59
2%
4%
5%
1%
3%
60-64
2%
4%
6%
2%
4%
>64
1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
Average
44
45
47
44
45
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Yes
38%
34%
46%
24%
34%
No
12%
14%
12%
15%
14%
I don't know
51%
52%
42%
61%
53%
Would you like to attend a company trainee programme?
Which of the following would you find most attractive if offered by an employer?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Competitive compensation
19%
25%
28%
20%
24%
Flexible working hours
33%
30%
28%
33%
31%
Good career reference
11%
12%
13%
11%
12%
Increasingly challenging tasks
26%
23%
26%
20%
23%
Inspiring colleagues
29%
27%
22%
29%
26%
Internal education
15%
16%
14%
19%
17%
International career opportunities
34%
30%
39%
27%
32%
Managerial responsibility
12%
21%
22%
15%
18%
Mentorships
8%
6%
7%
5%
6%
Project-based work
17%
19%
14%
25%
20%
Rapid career advancement
8%
11%
14%
7%
10%
Secure employment
19%
19%
13%
26%
20%
Trainee programme
13%
12%
15%
10%
12%
Variety of assignments
47%
39%
38%
42%
40%
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
74
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Which of the following do you find most important when you select your future ideal employer?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Corporate social responsibility
31%
26%
22%
26%
25%
Diverse/multicultural employees
18%
12%
14%
13%
14%
Dynamic organisation
28%
24%
30%
25%
27%
Equality between the sexes
36%
4%
12%
13%
13%
Exciting products/services
51%
60%
54%
57%
55%
Financial strength
10%
12%
14%
13%
13%
Good reputation at my school
8%
9%
7%
11%
9%
Good/confidence-inspiring management
33%
34%
32%
32%
32%
High ethical standards
18%
16%
14%
17%
15%
Innovation
21%
40%
27%
43%
36%
Market success
13%
19%
25%
13%
18%
Recruiting only the best students
2%
4%
5%
2%
3%
Strong corporate culture
18%
20%
26%
14%
19%
Other
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Apart from base salary, which of the following would you most prefer in your compensation package?
(Please choose a maximum of three alternatives)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Company car
5%
10%
11%
10%
10%
Company-paid formal education
68%
67%
66%
67%
66%
Extra vacation/personal days
21%
21%
21%
20%
21%
Healthcare benefits
31%
22%
20%
29%
25%
Paid overtime
60%
50%
42%
59%
52%
Performance-related bonus
35%
47%
56%
34%
43%
Profit sharing
11%
18%
21%
14%
17%
Retirement plan
43%
33%
31%
37%
34%
Stock options
3%
8%
9%
5%
7%
Other
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
75
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What do you associate with this company?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Competitive working environment
22%
24%
31%
18%
24%
Conservative working environment
12%
13%
15%
11%
13%
Corporate social responsibility
32%
27%
29%
27%
28%
Diverse/multicultural employees
45%
43%
48%
37%
42%
Dynamic organisation
38%
35%
45%
30%
37%
Equality between the sexes
33%
27%
33%
25%
29%
Excessive overtime
15%
18%
22%
13%
17%
Exciting products/services
68%
67%
67%
64%
65%
Financial strength
55%
55%
63%
51%
56%
Good reputation at my school
35%
40%
42%
36%
39%
Good/confidence-inspiring management
42%
41%
49%
37%
42%
High ethical standards
27%
23%
28%
21%
25%
Innovation
47%
50%
47%
52%
49%
Market success
61%
63%
66%
58%
62%
Recruiting only the best students
21%
23%
30%
16%
22%
Strong corporate culture
39%
41%
46%
35%
40%
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Competitive compensation
45%
51%
55%
43%
49%
Flexible working hours
32%
31%
33%
31%
32%
Good career reference
68%
71%
73%
67%
70%
Increasingly challenging tasks
53%
56%
60%
46%
52%
Inspiring colleagues
40%
40%
43%
35%
39%
Internal education
52%
56%
58%
53%
55%
International career opportunities
57%
63%
63%
58%
60%
Managerial responsibility
39%
44%
48%
38%
42%
Mentorships
18%
21%
24%
17%
20%
Project-based work
49%
54%
48%
55%
52%
Rapid career advancement
27%
30%
35%
22%
28%
Secure employment
34%
36%
34%
36%
35%
Trainee programme
34%
34%
41%
26%
33%
Variety of assignments
59%
57%
59%
52%
55%
What do you believe this company offers?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable)
76
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Have you, or will you, apply to this company?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Yes, I have applied
5%
4%
8%
2%
5%
Yes, I will apply
21%
21%
28%
19%
23%
Yes, I might apply
35%
37%
37%
33%
35%
No
13%
12%
9%
15%
13%
I don't know
25%
25%
17%
30%
24%
If you replied ’No’ or ‘Yes, I might apply’ for any of the companies, please answer why you will not
apply or why you are not sure that you will apply?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
I don’t have enough work experience
40%
31%
30%
36%
34%
I don’t have the necessary areas of study
17%
11%
10%
16%
14%
12%
9%
9%
9%
9%
12%
11%
11%
10%
10%
My grades are not good enough
6%
8%
8%
6%
7%
They are not recruiting right now
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
They are not recruiting students from my
school
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
They do not currently operate in my country
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
They don’t recruit in my home country
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Other
41%
44%
45%
39%
42%
I don’t know
14%
16%
17%
17%
17%
I don’t think I will live up to their demands as
an employee
I don’t think I will make it through their
recruitment process
77
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
How would you prefer to gather information about potential employers?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Acquaintances employed by the company
74%
70%
71%
69%
70%
Articles in newspapers and magazines
43%
40%
43%
41%
43%
Business game/case competition
5%
5%
9%
4%
6%
Career fairs
40%
35%
35%
34%
34%
Career services department at university
29%
24%
22%
30%
26%
Career websites
20%
18%
22%
17%
19%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
17%
12%
17%
9%
12%
Company presentations on campus
43%
39%
39%
40%
39%
Company recruitment brochures
30%
22%
26%
24%
24%
Company websites
60%
56%
60%
53%
56%
40%
37%
33%
42%
38%
14%
9%
11%
10%
11%
18%
15%
17%
15%
16%
7%
6%
8%
5%
7%
Fellow students
38%
37%
32%
37%
35%
Internships/work placements
62%
53%
53%
54%
54%
Job opening advertisement in print media
29%
25%
24%
29%
27%
Job opening advertisement on the Internet
38%
33%
34%
36%
35%
Part-time job
37%
28%
29%
29%
29%
Product promotional material
9%
7%
8%
7%
7%
Writing your thesis
16%
17%
13%
20%
17%
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Company visits/company events off
campus
Corporate/employer image advertisements
in print media
Corporate/employer image advertisements
on the Internet
Corporate/employer image advertisements
on TV
78
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
How have you mainly learned about this company?
(Please select as many alternatives as are applicable)
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
Acquaintances employed by the company
23%
21%
24%
20%
22%
Articles in newspapers and magazines
53%
57%
56%
60%
58%
Business game/case competition
2%
2%
4%
2%
3%
Career fairs
14%
15%
17%
10%
13%
Career services department at university
4%
4%
5%
5%
5%
Career websites
7%
8%
12%
5%
8%
Case studies/workshops/lectures
5%
4%
7%
3%
5%
Company presentations on campus
10%
13%
15%
10%
12%
Company recruitment brochures
7%
6%
8%
4%
6%
Company websites
38%
42%
46%
36%
40%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
18%
19%
21%
19%
20%
18%
20%
20%
18%
19%
21%
19%
20%
21%
21%
Fellow students
10%
12%
12%
11%
12%
Internships/work placements
5%
5%
7%
3%
5%
Job opening advertisement in print media
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Job opening advertisement on the Internet
12%
12%
15%
10%
12%
Part-time job
4%
3%
4%
3%
3%
Product promotional material
16%
12%
13%
12%
13%
Writing your thesis
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Other
15%
18%
15%
17%
16%
Company visits/company events off
campus
Corporate/employer image advertisements
in print media
Corporate/employer image advertisements
on the Internet
Corporate/employer image advertisements
on TV
79
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
What educational institution do you attend?
Female
Male
Business
Engineering/Natural
Sciences/IT
Total
-
0%
-
0%
0%
2%
7%
0%
7%
4%
1%
2%
0%
7%
4%
4%
5%
-
7%
4%
ETH Zürich
15%
15%
0%
7%
4%
FH Aargau Nordwestschweiz
2%
3%
3%
5%
4%
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
FH Solothurn Nordwestschweiz
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Haute École Valaisanne (HEV)
2%
2%
-
7%
4%
HEC Lausanne
2%
2%
9%
0%
4%
1%
2%
2%
5%
4%
0%
2%
-
8%
4%
1%
4%
0%
7%
4%
0%
1%
-
7%
4%
4%
2%
7%
1%
4%
5%
4%
9%
0%
4%
5%
2%
9%
1%
4%
5%
4%
10%
-
4%
2%
7%
-
7%
4%
Université de Fribourg
5%
3%
1%
7%
4%
Université de Genève
5%
2%
1%
7%
4%
Université de Lausanne
2%
1%
9%
0%
4%
Université Neuchâtel
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
Universität Basel
4%
3%
5%
3%
4%
Universität Bern
13%
10%
8%
1%
4%
Universität St.Gallen
3%
4%
9%
0%
4%
Universität Zürich
2%
2%
9%
0%
4%
Zürcher Hochschule Winterthur
12%
9%
5%
2%
4%
Other
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Ecole d'ingenieurs de Genève (EIG)
Ecole d'Ingénieurs du Canton de Vaud
(EIVD)
Ecole d'ingenieurs et d'architectes de
Fribourg
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL)
FH beider Basel (FHBB) Nordwestschweiz
Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Holz
(HSB) - Berner FH
Hochschule für Technik Buchs (NTB) - FH
Ostschweiz
Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil (HSR) FH Ostschweiz
Hochschule für Technik und Informatik (HTI)
- Berner FH
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Chur
(HTW) - FH Ostsch
Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und
Soziale Arbeit St.Gal
Hochschule für Wirtschaft Luzern - FH
Zentralschweiz
Hochschule für Wirtschaft, Verwaltung und
Soziale Arbeit (HW
Hochschule Technik + Architektur Luzern
(HTA) - FH Zentralsc
APPENDIX
80
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Employer Ranking Lists
Ideal Employer Ranking List - Business
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
UBS
1
29,00%
1
Nestlé
2
22,83%
2
Credit Suisse
3
19,53%
3
PricewaterhouseCoopers
4
13,91%
4
L'Oréal
5
12,70%
6
Swatch Group
6
12,47%
18
McKinsey & Company
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
Novartis
7
11,66%
12
8
11,34%
9
9
11,19%
7
Coca-Cola
10
10,89%
-
Ernst & Young
11
9,02%
5
IKEA
12
8,71%
8
Procter & Gamble
13
8,48%
10
Schweizerische Nationalbank
14
8,41%
24
Kuoni
15
8,26%
23
Bundesverwaltung
16
8,12%
11
The Boston Consulting Group
17
8,10%
40
Migros
18
8,07%
14
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
19
7,34%
-
KPMG
20
7,21%
21
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
21
6,85%
29
Swisscom
22
6,81%
13
IBM
23
5,78%
17
SBB CFF FFS
24
5,64%
15
ABB
25
5,55%
19
Roche
26
5,53%
30
Bank Julius Bär
27
5,25%
27
JPMorgan
28
4,77%
42
Goldman Sachs
29
4,60%
47
Microsoft
30
4,44%
22
KKL-Luzern
31
4,39%
-
Raiffeisen
32
4,29%
34
Unilever
33
4,26%
38
Swiss Re
34
4,25%
26
Johnson & Johnson
35
3,88%
33
Victorinox
36
3,86%
-
Siemens
37
3,71%
28
HSBC
38
3,60%
41
Merrill Lynch
39
3,53%
68
Zürcher Kantonalbank
40
3,35%
50
Orange
41
3,27%
39
Postfinance
42
3,22%
45
Kühne & Nagel
43
3,10%
-
Deutsche Bank
44
3,08%
58
Hewlett-Packard
45
3,05%
25
Richmont Group
46
2,88%
-
Morgan Stanley
47
2,88%
70
MasterFoods
48
2,84%
59
Kraft foods
49
2,81%
62
Coop
50
2,78%
52
Hilti
51
2,77%
31
Die Post
52
2,70%
43
Bally
53
2,61%
-
SAP Schweiz
54
2,51%
113
Ericsson
55
2,44%
56
Pilatus Aircraft
56
2,41%
36
Beiersdorf
57
2,40%
-
Philip Morris
58
2,20%
32
Bain & Company
59
2,20%
66
Deloitte
60
2,18%
53
Bank Leu
61
1,99%
-
Zürich Financial Services
62
1,93%
63
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
81
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Citigroup
63
1,90%
48
Leica Geosystems
64
1,88%
84
Danone
65
1,84%
35
Sun Microsystems
66
1,82%
71
Tetra Pak
67
1,82%
81
Bombardier Transportation
68
1,79%
-
Philips
69
1,77%
88
Vodafone
70
1,69%
73
Serono
71
1,64%
57
Winterthur
72
1,62%
77
British American Tobacco
73
1,57%
76
Swiss Life
74
1,52%
94
DHL
75
1,49%
74
Roland Berger
76
1,47%
102
Schindler
77
1,44%
51
ACNielsen
78
1,36%
-
Accenture
79
1,35%
54
Wella
80
1,35%
-
Mercer Management Consulting
81
1,28%
-
Pfizer
82
1,27%
100
Oracle
83
1,10%
-
BNP Paribas
84
1,08%
69
Holcim
85
1,00%
65
VZ Vermögenszentrum
86
1,00%
-
Alstom
87
0,97%
98
Monitor Group
88
0,97%
-
Booz Allen Hamilton
89
0,94%
93
Cisco Systems
90
0,91%
72
Bosch
91
0,90%
61
ABN Amro
92
0,80%
83
Allianz
93
0,78%
49
Barclays
94
0,76%
-
Schweizer Armee
95
0,72%
89
Aldi Suisse
96
0,70%
-
Basler Versicherungen
97
0,67%
67
Henkel
98
0,64%
95
Bayer
99
0,62%
80
Arthur D. Little
100
0,54%
-
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
101
0,52%
79
Mercer Oliver Wyman
102
0,51%
-
Syngenta
103
0,49%
92
BMW*
104
0,48%
-
DuPont
105
0,46%
90
BearingPoint
106
0,46%
104
UN*
107
0,45%
85
Sulzer
108
0,45%
101
Horváth & Partner
109
0,45%
-
Oerlikon Contraves
110
0,44%
117
AIG Privatbank
111
0,44%
-
Lidl
112
0,42%
-
Baloise Bank SoBa
113
0,38%
-
Ascom
114
0,31%
82
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
115
0,31%
-
AstraZeneca
116
0,31%
108
Unaxis
117
0,29%
106
T-Systems
118
0,25%
-
Capgemini
119
0,24%
109
ING Group
120
0,22%
114
A.T. Kearney
121
0,21%
103
Georg Fischer
122
0,21%
-
Stern Stewart
123
0,19%
-
AWD AG
124
0,19%
-
Lonza Group
125
0,16%
120
Credit Agricole
126
0,14%
-
WWF*
127
0,11%
126
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
82
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
CSC
128
0,10%
-
Unisys
129
0,08%
-
Altran
130
0,07%
112
Cambridge Technology Partners
131
0,06%
-
Google*
131
0,06%
123
Logitech*
131
0,06%
118
Centerpuls
134
0,03%
116
RUAG*
135
0,03%
-
* Pushed company 2006
APPENDIX
83
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Considered Employer Ranking List – Business
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Nestlé
1
82,34%
1
Swatch Group
2
79,00%
2
UBS
3
74,82%
11
Siemens
4
72,24%
4
Novartis
5
71,47%
7
Credit Suisse
6
71,32%
13
Coca-Cola
7
70,50%
-
IBM
8
69,44%
5
Roche
9
68,38%
12
Ericsson
10
68,16%
10
Philips
11
67,51%
9
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
12
67,37%
-
L'Oréal
13
67,16%
14
Hewlett-Packard
14
66,60%
8
Swisscom
15
65,25%
15
Microsoft
16
63,58%
16
Kuoni
17
62,33%
28
Ernst & Young
18
62,09%
24
PricewaterhouseCoopers
19
61,60%
23
Schweizerische Nationalbank
20
60,84%
29
ABB
21
60,43%
33
Johnson & Johnson
22
59,76%
22
Procter & Gamble
23
59,50%
32
IKEA
24
59,22%
17
Danone
25
58,39%
20
Orange
26
58,17%
25
Migros
27
57,72%
30
Vodafone
28
57,43%
26
Bank Julius Bär
29
56,84%
48
The Boston Consulting Group
30
56,84%
46
Deutsche Bank
31
55,99%
39
Swiss Re
32
55,95%
38
McKinsey & Company
33
55,09%
49
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
34
54,24%
68
Victorinox
35
53,68%
-
Coop
36
53,30%
42
Allianz
37
53,29%
43
Tetra Pak
38
53,10%
27
Raiffeisen
39
53,05%
35
Zürcher Kantonalbank
40
52,98%
52
Swiss Life
41
52,58%
54
Winterthur
42
52,32%
55
Zürich Financial Services
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
SBB CFF FFS
43
51,75%
47
44
51,66%
36
45
50,43%
44
Postfinance
46
50,14%
53
Kraft foods
47
50,12%
50
Unilever
48
50,10%
64
Bayer
49
50,07%
37
Bank Leu
50
48,82%
-
Die Post
51
48,55%
60
KPMG
52
48,54%
57
DHL
53
48,41%
41
JPMorgan
54
47,78%
62
Bosch
55
47,74%
34
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
56
44,81%
51
Bally
57
44,67%
-
Serono
58
44,54%
67
Oracle
59
44,50%
-
HSBC
60
44,15%
71
Citigroup
61
42,90%
72
Wella
62
42,84%
-
Schindler
63
42,55%
58
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
84
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Henkel
64
41,78%
69
Ascom
65
41,65%
65
SAP Schweiz
66
41,21%
127
Morgan Stanley
67
41,07%
76
Sulzer
68
40,99%
59
Basler Versicherungen
69
40,95%
74
Leica Geosystems
70
40,36%
83
Cisco Systems
71
40,16%
56
Merrill Lynch
72
39,80%
80
Syngenta
73
38,96%
70
Pfizer
74
38,80%
73
Hilti
75
38,75%
78
Sun Microsystems
76
38,69%
61
Richmont Group
77
38,40%
-
Holcim
78
37,42%
82
Bundesverwaltung
79
36,67%
77
Beiersdorf
80
36,60%
-
Baloise Bank SoBa
81
36,39%
-
MasterFoods
82
36,36%
89
BNP Paribas
83
36,33%
84
Barclays
84
35,79%
-
Unaxis
85
35,68%
86
Goldman Sachs
86
34,71%
91
Mercer Management Consulting
87
32,81%
-
Pilatus Aircraft
88
32,57%
81
Deloitte
89
32,47%
97
Philip Morris
90
32,26%
85
Alstom
91
32,06%
87
KKL-Luzern
92
31,19%
-
Kühne & Nagel
93
31,18%
-
ABN Amro
94
30,91%
94
AIG Privatbank
95
30,35%
-
Lonza Group
96
29,62%
88
Credit Agricole
97
29,31%
-
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
98
28,70%
-
British American Tobacco
99
28,48%
95
VZ Vermögenszentrum
100
26,75%
-
Bombardier Transportation
101
25,07%
-
Aldi Suisse
102
24,75%
-
Georg Fischer
103
24,06%
-
Lidl
104
23,71%
-
Accenture
105
23,29%
101
T-Systems
106
23,10%
-
ACNielsen
107
21,49%
-
Roland Berger
108
19,59%
111
CSC
109
19,54%
-
DuPont
110
19,41%
100
Bain & Company
111
18,85%
108
Oerlikon Contraves
112
18,22%
102
ING Group
113
18,06%
104
Unisys
114
17,46%
-
Arthur D. Little
115
17,40%
-
Booz Allen Hamilton
116
16,04%
114
Horváth & Partner
117
15,68%
-
Centerpuls
118
15,07%
103
AstraZeneca
119
14,69%
107
Cambridge Technology Partners
120
14,48%
-
Schweizer Armee
121
14,34%
110
Monitor Group
122
13,90%
-
Capgemini
123
13,53%
109
Mercer Oliver Wyman
124
13,10%
-
BearingPoint
125
13,08%
116
AWD AG
126
12,47%
-
A.T. Kearney
127
11,15%
117
Altran
128
10,87%
112
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
85
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Stern Stewart
129
9,19%
-
ELCA
130
6,68%
-
BMW*
131
0,61%
-
UN*
132
0,45%
119
Logitech*
133
0,11%
123
WWF*
134
0,10%
125
RUAG*
135
0,07%
-
Google*
136
0,06%
128
* Pushed company 2006
APPENDIX
86
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Familiar Employer Ranking List – Business
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
UBS
1
98,14%
1
Nestlé
2
98,14%
4
Swisscom
3
97,94%
6
Swatch Group
4
97,61%
9
Microsoft
5
97,53%
8
Credit Suisse
6
97,53%
7
Coca-Cola
7
97,51%
-
Orange
8
97,38%
15
Philips
9
97,29%
16
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
10
97,21%
22
L'Oréal
11
96,96%
19
IKEA
12
96,93%
2
Novartis
13
96,90%
10
SBB CFF FFS
14
96,83%
23
Roche
15
96,80%
28
Siemens
16
96,79%
17
Raiffeisen
17
96,76%
27
Coop
18
96,70%
21
Migros
19
96,40%
14
IBM
20
96,35%
18
Philip Morris
21
96,28%
20
Ericsson
22
96,09%
5
Winterthur
23
95,99%
29
Die Post
24
95,72%
30
Vodafone
25
95,67%
24
Allianz
26
95,11%
38
Kuoni
27
94,94%
37
Postfinance
28
94,91%
33
Deutsche Bank
29
94,90%
36
Danone
30
94,58%
31
Schweizer Armee
31
94,31%
40
Hewlett-Packard
32
94,22%
32
Schweizerische Nationalbank
33
93,79%
34
Tetra Pak
34
93,21%
39
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
35
92,89%
-
Bosch
36
92,89%
35
Ernst & Young
37
92,70%
47
Swiss Life
38
92,58%
46
ABB
39
92,53%
41
Zürcher Kantonalbank
40
92,20%
43
PricewaterhouseCoopers
41
91,24%
48
Aldi Suisse
42
90,74%
-
Swiss Re
43
89,84%
53
DHL
44
89,19%
45
Victorinox
45
88,84%
-
British American Tobacco
46
88,69%
50
Lidl
47
88,16%
-
Barclays
48
88,06%
-
Bank Julius Bär
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
Basler Versicherungen
49
87,94%
60
50
87,66%
55
51
86,91%
59
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
52
86,24%
49
Zürich Financial Services
53
85,99%
52
Bally
54
85,58%
-
McKinsey & Company
55
85,46%
63
Bayer
56
84,86%
54
Johnson & Johnson
57
83,64%
58
Ascom
58
82,90%
56
Bundesverwaltung
59
82,82%
67
Sulzer
60
82,22%
62
Procter & Gamble
61
81,12%
65
Bank Leu
62
80,97%
-
The Boston Consulting Group
63
80,81%
70
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
87
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Baloise Bank SoBa
64
79,78%
-
KPMG
65
79,59%
74
Schindler
66
79,44%
64
Henkel
67
78,44%
66
Kraft foods
68
77,02%
69
Oracle
69
76,98%
-
Wella
70
76,24%
-
SAP Schweiz
71
74,60%
127
Serono
72
74,32%
84
Unilever
73
73,68%
82
Unaxis
74
73,08%
86
Holcim
75
72,70%
80
Pfizer
76
71,66%
78
Syngenta
77
71,63%
75
Citigroup
78
71,55%
79
JPMorgan
79
71,10%
85
Cisco Systems
80
70,35%
72
Credit Agricole
81
69,46%
-
Leica Geosystems
82
69,46%
93
Pilatus Aircraft
83
69,20%
77
Sun Microsystems
84
68,48%
73
Hilti
85
67,89%
88
Alstom
86
66,51%
81
Lonza Group
87
65,19%
83
HSBC
88
64,96%
89
BNP Paribas
89
62,76%
90
Merrill Lynch
90
62,34%
91
MasterFoods
91
62,32%
94
Morgan Stanley
92
62,27%
92
Beiersdorf
93
60,51%
-
VZ Vermögenszentrum
94
59,39%
-
Richmont Group
95
59,03%
-
KKL-Luzern
96
58,21%
-
AIG Privatbank
97
57,95%
-
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
98
56,30%
-
Bombardier Transportation
99
55,64%
-
Kühne & Nagel
100
55,04%
-
Deloitte
101
54,06%
98
Goldman Sachs
102
53,28%
96
Mercer Management Consulting
103
50,73%
-
ABN Amro
104
50,51%
97
Georg Fischer
105
49,27%
-
T-Systems
106
48,68%
-
Oerlikon Contraves
107
44,81%
101
AWD AG
108
44,52%
-
Accenture
109
43,47%
103
ACNielsen
110
41,50%
-
DuPont
111
40,60%
102
Unisys
112
38,80%
-
CSC
113
38,09%
-
ING Group
114
37,13%
106
Centerpuls
115
34,56%
104
Roland Berger
116
34,42%
112
Arthur D. Little
117
34,00%
-
AstraZeneca
118
33,49%
107
Cambridge Technology Partners
119
33,15%
-
Altran
120
32,59%
109
Bain & Company
121
32,33%
111
Horváth & Partner
122
31,64%
-
Capgemini
123
29,65%
108
Monitor Group
124
29,61%
-
Booz Allen Hamilton
125
29,33%
116
BearingPoint
126
27,05%
115
Mercer Oliver Wyman
127
25,45%
-
A.T. Kearney
128
23,63%
118
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
88
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
ELCA
129
23,08%
-
Stern Stewart
130
22,45%
-
BMW*
131
0,60%
-
UN*
132
0,45%
119
Logitech*
133
0,11%
123
WWF*
134
0,10%
125
RUAG*
135
0,07%
-
Google*
136
0,06%
128
* Pushed company 2006
89
APPENDIX
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Employer Ranking Lists
Ideal Employer Ranking List - Engineering & Science
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
ABB
1
20,72%
1
Siemens
2
19,20%
5
IBM
3
18,13%
2
Nestlé
4
15,56%
4
Novartis
5
15,15%
3
SBB CFF FFS
6
12,59%
9
Pilatus Aircraft
7
12,57%
14
Leica Geosystems
8
12,36%
22
Sun Microsystems
9
12,09%
15
Roche
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
Swisscom
10
11,93%
6
11
10,28%
10
12
10,25%
8
Cisco Systems
13
10,04%
11
Hewlett-Packard
14
9,47%
13
Swatch Group
15
8,85%
29
UBS
16
8,55%
18
Hilti
17
7,89%
19
Alstom
18
7,71%
17
Bundesverwaltung
19
7,38%
28
Ericsson
20
7,35%
24
Philips
21
7,23%
49
Bosch
22
7,13%
25
Serono
23
6,91%
12
Microsoft
24
6,66%
16
Bombardier Transportation
25
6,54%
-
Victorinox
26
5,86%
-
Migros
27
5,45%
27
Schindler
28
5,45%
39
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
29
5,43%
50
Credit Suisse
30
4,64%
26
Bayer
31
4,44%
37
Schweizer Armee
32
4,18%
52
Sulzer
33
4,16%
56
Oracle
34
4,10%
-
Unaxis
35
3,98%
32
IKEA
36
3,93%
31
Orange
37
3,90%
38
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
38
3,86%
20
Ascom
39
3,61%
30
Syngenta
40
3,59%
41
Tetra Pak
41
3,47%
46
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
42
3,39%
-
Oerlikon Contraves
43
3,20%
35
Holcim
44
3,10%
48
L'Oréal
45
2,89%
45
McKinsey & Company
46
2,88%
43
Swiss Re
47
2,81%
54
DuPont
48
2,56%
59
Danone
49
2,51%
42
Coca-Cola
50
2,50%
-
Pfizer
51
2,47%
44
Philip Morris
52
2,35%
51
Lonza Group
53
2,34%
58
KKL-Luzern
54
2,10%
-
Johnson & Johnson
55
2,07%
47
Kuoni
56
1,92%
61
Coop
57
1,80%
36
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
58
1,76%
-
Procter & Gamble
59
1,76%
74
Cambridge Technology Partners
60
1,74%
-
Postfinance
61
1,67%
65
Die Post
62
1,62%
66
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
90
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
SAP Schweiz
63
1,57%
132
Schweizerische Nationalbank
64
1,49%
70
Ernst & Young
65
1,45%
78
DHL
66
1,17%
115
Vodafone
67
1,17%
87
PricewaterhouseCoopers
68
1,16%
62
Georg Fischer
69
1,11%
-
The Boston Consulting Group
70
1,04%
71
Raiffeisen
71
1,02%
83
AstraZeneca
72
1,01%
67
Altran
73
1,01%
57
ELCA
74
0,93%
-
Accenture
75
0,92%
60
Zürcher Kantonalbank
76
0,84%
82
Basler Versicherungen
77
0,79%
92
Swiss Life
78
0,77%
111
HSBC
79
0,74%
101
Centerpuls
80
0,74%
90
Winterthur
81
0,73%
75
Bank Julius Bär
82
0,70%
73
Unilever
83
0,64%
81
JPMorgan
84
0,62%
97
Zürich Financial Services
85
0,59%
96
Allianz
86
0,57%
64
Kühne & Nagel
87
0,57%
-
Kraft foods
88
0,52%
69
Unisys
89
0,50%
-
KPMG
90
0,50%
116
Wella
91
0,47%
-
Richmont Group
92
0,40%
-
Deutsche Bank
93
0,38%
84
RUAG*
94
0,38%
-
T-Systems
95
0,36%
-
Bain & Company
96
0,35%
88
WWF*
97
0,35%
98
MasterFoods
98
0,32%
85
ING Group
99
0,31%
123
Roland Berger
100
0,31%
125
Booz Allen Hamilton
101
0,31%
110
British American Tobacco
102
0,30%
89
Credit Agricole
103
0,27%
-
Merrill Lynch
104
0,25%
124
Citigroup
105
0,24%
117
Beiersdorf
106
0,23%
-
Goldman Sachs
107
0,23%
104
Mercer Management Consulting
108
0,22%
-
UN*
109
0,21%
121
Google*
110
0,20%
77
Horváth & Partner
111
0,19%
-
Deloitte
112
0,19%
130
Arthur D. Little
113
0,18%
-
Aldi Suisse
114
0,18%
-
Herzog & de Meuron*
115
0,17%
-
Logitech*
116
0,12%
93
Capgemini
117
0,12%
130
Monitor Group
118
0,11%
-
Bally
119
0,11%
-
Bank Leu
120
0,11%
-
BMW*
121
0,10%
-
BNP Paribas
122
0,10%
120
A.T. Kearney
123
0,09%
76
BearingPoint
124
0,08%
109
AIG Privatbank
125
0,08%
-
Baloise Bank SoBa
126
0,06%
-
ABN Amro
127
0,06%
105
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
91
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
CSC
128
0,05%
-
ACNielsen
129
0,05%
-
Morgan Stanley
130
0,04%
122
Barclays
131
0,04%
-
VZ Vermögenszentrum
132
0,03%
-
Henkel
133
0,01%
107
Mercer Oliver Wyman
133
0,01%
-
* Pushed company 2006
APPENDIX
92
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Considered Employer Ranking List – Engineering & Science
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Siemens
1
66,13%
1
IBM
2
60,44%
3
Swatch Group
3
59,49%
4
ABB
4
59,49%
11
Philips
5
58,87%
7
Hewlett-Packard
6
58,40%
6
Nestlé
7
57,95%
5
Novartis
8
57,38%
10
Ericsson
9
55,97%
9
SBB CFF FFS
10
54,14%
16
Roche
11
53,59%
14
Bosch
12
52,33%
12
Swisscom
13
52,26%
17
Sun Microsystems
14
47,75%
18
Victorinox
15
46,41%
-
Leica Geosystems
16
44,58%
35
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
17
44,20%
36
Sulzer
18
42,85%
23
Pilatus Aircraft
19
42,81%
24
Ascom
20
42,64%
25
Cisco Systems
21
42,16%
21
Tetra Pak
22
42,06%
20
Orange
23
41,14%
27
Schindler
24
40,55%
29
Microsoft
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
25
39,97%
34
26
39,25%
22
27
38,74%
-
Migros
28
38,73%
26
UBS
29
36,54%
40
Hilti
30
36,02%
38
Coca-Cola
31
35,74%
-
Bayer
32
35,68%
33
Die Post
33
35,09%
41
Vodafone
34
35,06%
30
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
35
34,93%
28
Credit Suisse
36
34,74%
43
Coop
37
33,35%
39
IKEA
38
32,81%
37
Alstom
39
32,74%
42
Oracle
40
32,35%
-
Danone
41
31,34%
31
Schweizerische Nationalbank
42
30,51%
46
Raiffeisen
43
29,31%
44
L'Oréal
44
29,06%
45
Kuoni
45
28,76%
48
Postfinance
46
28,74%
53
Bombardier Transportation
47
28,39%
-
Johnson & Johnson
48
28,18%
47
Serono
49
28,04%
59
Bundesverwaltung
50
27,41%
50
DHL
51
26,10%
52
Syngenta
52
26,06%
55
Winterthur
53
24,93%
57
Lonza Group
54
24,84%
63
Swiss Re
55
24,08%
64
Unaxis
56
23,32%
65
Holcim
57
23,29%
74
Pfizer
58
23,05%
70
Swiss Life
59
22,74%
69
SAP Schweiz
60
22,62%
136
Schweizer Armee
61
22,47%
73
Allianz
62
22,08%
58
Deutsche Bank
63
21,70%
67
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
93
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
64
21,51%
-
Zürcher Kantonalbank
65
21,20%
60
Ernst & Young
66
20,33%
75
Oerlikon Contraves
67
20,21%
72
Kraft foods
68
18,82%
61
McKinsey & Company
69
18,10%
82
Cambridge Technology Partners
70
17,86%
-
Bank Julius Bär
71
17,56%
79
Zürich Financial Services
72
17,48%
76
Henkel
73
17,35%
66
Basler Versicherungen
74
17,34%
80
T-Systems
75
17,27%
-
Philip Morris
76
16,98%
81
DuPont
77
16,31%
83
PricewaterhouseCoopers
78
15,63%
78
Procter & Gamble
79
15,26%
84
KKL-Luzern
80
15,18%
-
Wella
81
14,77%
-
Georg Fischer
82
14,54%
-
Bank Leu
83
14,19%
-
MasterFoods
84
13,51%
86
Bally
85
13,04%
-
Unisys
86
12,92%
-
British American Tobacco
87
12,18%
88
Baloise Bank SoBa
88
11,91%
-
Beiersdorf
89
11,87%
-
Unilever
90
11,76%
87
Altran
91
11,68%
90
The Boston Consulting Group
92
11,54%
89
Kühne & Nagel
93
11,53%
-
Credit Agricole
94
11,13%
-
Barclays
95
10,95%
-
HSBC
96
10,90%
93
Citigroup
97
9,60%
94
JPMorgan
98
8,57%
97
Aldi Suisse
99
8,42%
-
Richmont Group
100
8,26%
-
BNP Paribas
101
8,20%
104
Accenture
102
7,98%
101
AstraZeneca
103
7,61%
100
Lidl
104
7,31%
-
CSC
105
7,29%
-
ELCA
106
6,81%
-
KPMG
107
6,69%
103
Mercer Management Consulting
108
6,68%
-
AIG Privatbank
109
6,38%
-
Goldman Sachs
110
6,37%
102
VZ Vermögenszentrum
111
6,29%
-
Merrill Lynch
112
6,21%
106
ABN Amro
113
6,14%
105
Centerpuls
114
6,06%
99
Morgan Stanley
115
5,28%
98
Deloitte
116
4,90%
111
AWD AG
117
4,51%
-
Monitor Group
118
4,48%
-
ING Group
119
4,43%
108
Booz Allen Hamilton
120
4,26%
113
Bain & Company
121
3,98%
112
ACNielsen
122
3,30%
-
Capgemini
123
3,00%
109
Roland Berger
124
2,86%
116
BearingPoint
125
2,63%
117
A.T. Kearney
126
2,51%
114
Arthur D. Little
127
2,20%
-
Horváth & Partner
128
1,99%
-
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
94
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Stern Stewart
129
1,86%
-
Mercer Oliver Wyman
130
1,64%
-
RUAG*
131
0,39%
-
WWF*
132
0,35%
125
UN*
133
0,22%
130
Google*
134
0,22%
119
Logitech*
135
0,18%
123
Herzog & de Meuron*
136
0,17%
-
BMW*
137
0,10%
-
* Pushed company 2006
APPENDIX
95
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Familiar Employer Ranking List – Engineering & Science
Company/Org.
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Swisscom
1
94,79%
3
Siemens
2
94,48%
8
Nestlé
3
94,44%
4
Migros
4
94,19%
5
UBS
5
93,85%
12
Microsoft
6
93,65%
9
IBM
7
93,52%
1
Orange
8
93,46%
18
Coca-Cola
9
93,42%
-
Credit Suisse
10
93,34%
23
Ericsson
11
93,21%
13
Coop
12
93,05%
17
SBB CFF FFS
13
93,01%
10
Swatch Group
14
92,86%
16
IKEA
15
92,52%
6
Philips
16
92,51%
15
Novartis
17
92,14%
11
SWISS (Swiss airlines)
18
92,06%
14
Philip Morris
19
91,24%
21
Raiffeisen
20
91,03%
26
Die Post
21
90,34%
28
L'Oréal
22
90,29%
30
Roche
23
90,13%
27
Postfinance
24
90,02%
35
Hewlett-Packard
25
90,00%
24
Schweizer Armee
26
89,93%
25
Bosch
27
89,69%
22
Winterthur
28
89,49%
31
Vodafone
29
89,28%
29
Victorinox
30
87,72%
-
Tetra Pak
31
86,68%
37
Allianz
32
85,93%
43
Deutsche Bank
33
85,07%
39
Danone
34
85,05%
36
Kuoni
35
83,80%
42
Schweizerische Nationalbank
36
83,63%
40
ABB
37
83,09%
41
Zürcher Kantonalbank
38
80,27%
44
Lindt & Sprüngli AG
39
79,93%
-
DHL
40
78,53%
45
Swiss Life
41
76,53%
53
Ciba Spezialitätenchemie
42
74,67%
47
Ascom
43
73,98%
48
Aldi Suisse
44
73,65%
-
Sun Microsystems
45
72,15%
49
Bayer
IKRK (Internationales Komitee vom Roten
Kreuz)
Sulzer
46
71,06%
50
47
70,90%
54
48
70,70%
51
Barclays
49
70,60%
-
Lidl
50
70,08%
-
Schindler
51
69,88%
56
British American Tobacco
52
69,80%
52
Basler Versicherungen
53
69,15%
55
Cisco Systems
54
67,55%
59
Pilatus Aircraft
55
67,06%
57
Swiss Re
56
66,05%
64
Bundesverwaltung
57
65,80%
62
Bally
58
64,44%
-
Zürich Financial Services
59
63,61%
58
Leica Geosystems
60
61,64%
73
Johnson & Johnson
61
61,57%
65
Bank Julius Bär
62
60,87%
67
Oracle
63
60,12%
-
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
96
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Hilti
64
58,70%
68
Henkel
65
58,65%
66
Baloise Bank SoBa
66
58,05%
-
Bank Leu
67
57,34%
-
Credit Agricole
68
56,61%
-
Ernst & Young
69
56,05%
72
Alstom
70
55,77%
69
Wella
71
54,19%
-
Serono
72
53,20%
81
Unaxis
73
52,71%
80
Syngenta
74
52,43%
76
Pfizer
75
52,31%
74
Kraft foods
76
52,18%
70
Lonza Group
77
50,04%
75
Holcim
78
49,41%
84
Bombardier Transportation
79
48,40%
-
SAP Schweiz
80
47,87%
136
McKinsey & Company
81
45,67%
79
PricewaterhouseCoopers
82
44,53%
77
KKL-Luzern
83
42,62%
-
MasterFoods
84
40,61%
88
BNP Paribas
85
39,79%
89
Oerlikon Contraves
86
39,74%
83
Citigroup
87
39,00%
90
Procter & Gamble
88
38,82%
86
ThyssenKrupp Presta AG
89
38,51%
-
The Boston Consulting Group
90
36,31%
87
AIG Privatbank
91
36,22%
-
VZ Vermögenszentrum
92
35,89%
-
DuPont
93
34,84%
92
HSBC
94
34,71%
93
Unilever
95
34,26%
91
T-Systems
96
33,09%
-
Cambridge Technology Partners
97
32,92%
-
JPMorgan
98
31,09%
94
Beiersdorf
99
30,55%
-
Richmont Group
100
30,26%
-
Georg Fischer
101
30,23%
-
Unisys
102
30,22%
-
Kühne & Nagel
103
28,87%
-
Altran
104
28,58%
97
AWD AG
105
27,79%
-
CSC
106
27,42%
-
ABN Amro
107
24,51%
102
KPMG
108
23,91%
103
Merrill Lynch
109
23,86%
101
Accenture
110
23,59%
99
Morgan Stanley
111
23,03%
98
Mercer Management Consulting
112
22,24%
-
Goldman Sachs
113
22,19%
104
ELCA
114
20,42%
-
AstraZeneca
115
20,32%
106
Centerpuls
116
20,28%
105
ING Group
117
20,27%
107
Monitor Group
118
19,49%
-
Deloitte
119
17,92%
109
Booz Allen Hamilton
120
15,99%
115
Bain & Company
121
15,97%
111
ACNielsen
122
15,28%
-
Horváth & Partner
123
14,12%
-
BearingPoint
124
13,55%
118
Arthur D. Little
125
13,47%
-
Capgemini
126
13,45%
108
Roland Berger
127
13,33%
114
A.T. Kearney
128
13,08%
117
APPENDIX
Company/Org.
97
©2006 UNIVERSUM GRADUATE SURVEY
Ranking 2006
Percent 2006
Ranking 2005
Stern Stewart
129
13,04%
-
Mercer Oliver Wyman
130
12,47%
-
RUAG*
131
0,38%
-
WWF*
132
0,35%
125
UN*
133
0,22%
130
Google*
134
0,21%
119
Logitech*
135
0,18%
123
Herzog & de Meuron*
136
0,17%
-
BMW*
137
0,10%
-
* Pushed company 2006