Getting to work is increasingly the company’s responsibility. One in three employees expects support from their employer for daily commuting.
For years, commuting to work in Poland was solely the employee’s personal concern. That is changing. According to a study titled “Present and Future Perspectives of Mobility Services,” conducted by INQUIRY on behalf of Arval, one in three employees expects their employer to take on the role of arranging commuting, while nearly half would change their current mode of transportation if they had a real choice.
However, companies’ offerings fail to meet these expectations. Mobility benefits are one of the least commonly provided categories of non-monetary perks, and those that do exist often fall short of what employees actually want.
33% of employees believe employers should arrange commuting
47% would change their way of commuting if they had a real alternative
Only 21% of those eligible for benefits have access to mobility services
78% would like a permanent mobility budget, but only 3% have one.
55% expect the benefit to cost them nothing.
Employees’ expectations – a market divided into three equal parts.
When directly asked whether employers should arrange transportation, respondents were almost evenly split: 33% said yes, 32% said no, and 35% had no opinion. Such a large group of undecideds does not mean there is no need. It rather shows that employee mobility still isn’t rooted in either employees’ awareness or companies’ organizational culture.
The need for support is significantly higher in certain groups. Among those who commute for over an hour, 62% report needing it. Sectors above average include manufacturing (45%), logistics and transportation (43%), and IT (41%), as well as employees at the executive level (45%). These are natural areas for piloting new solutions.
Commute time and costs – apparent satisfaction
At first glance, the situation seems good: 76% of respondents are satisfied with their current commute method. At the same time, 47% would change it if they could. The explanation is simple – for 58% of respondents, the main reason for choosing a particular mode of transport is the lack of alternatives. Lower costs and shorter travel times rank lower in importance.
The main concern for dissatisfied employees is the excessively long commute time (40%), followed by high costs (15%), lack of flexibility (11%), and parking problems (10%). Among this group, 58% expect financial support from their employers above all else. Other priorities include more frequent remote work (34%), better infrastructure at the workplace (28%), flexible working hours (22%), access to shared transportation (20%), and better organized employee transport (16%).
Mobility benefits – the lowest priority among perks
The perspective of businesses is illustrated by Arval Mobility Observatory’s Fleet and Mobility Barometer 2026, prepared with Ipsos based on responses from over 10,000 companies in 33 countries. According to it, 64% of companies in Poland have already adopted flexible mobility solutions as an alternative to company cars, with another 24% planning to do so within three years. For comparison, the European average is 77%. The progress is evident — in the previous edition of the survey, Poland ranked last in Europe with a score of 36%. As Radosław Kitala from Arval notes, however, the mere existence of such solutions does not guarantee they meet employees’ needs.
The data from INQUIRY confirms this. Non-monetary benefits are available to 65% of respondents, with sports-related benefits being the most common (76%) and health-related benefits at 73%. Mobility benefits round out this list, with only 21% of employees eligible for them. Paradoxically, 72% of respondents consider these benefits attractive, a figure nearly equal to that for sports-related benefits (74%) and development-related benefits (75%).
The gap between demand and supply – parking instead of budgets
In areas where mobility benefits already exist, solutions that are easy to manage dominate: free parking space (49%), an exclusive company car (45%), and fuel subsidies (41%). However, employees would prefer financial benefits with universal applications: a fixed monthly mobility budget for their own use (78% of respondents), subsidies for public transportation (74%), and fuel subsidies (73%). Only 3% of respondents indicated access to a mobility budget — this is one of the biggest discrepancies revealed in the survey.
Barrriers – cost to employees and lack of awareness
The first requirement is clear: 55% of respondents expect the benefit to be completely free for them. Freedom of choice in transportation (41%), easy accessibility (39%), and actual time savings (37%) are also important factors. Therefore, more complex models—such as flexible car rental, re-leasing, or car sharing—attract 35–40% of interested parties, although 69–83% of respondents rate their individual components positively. The issue isn’t the product itself, but rather trust and knowledge: 15–16% of uninterested people admit they don’t understand how such services work or lack trust in them.
Regulations and Europe – In Poland, discounts are only for buses
Regulations also hinder the development of mobility benefits. Poland’s PIT law exempts from tax only the value of bus transportation arranged by the employer for employees (Article 21, Paragraph 1, Point 14a). Tax authorities generally treat other forms of funding for commuting as income to the employee from gratuitous benefits.
The situation is different in countries like France. There, employers must reimburse half of the cost of a periodic public transportation pass and can also provide what is known as a forfait mobilités durables—a tax- and contribution-free subsidy for commuting by bike, scooter, or carpooling, up to 600 euros per year. Similar measures could help promote mobility budgets also on the Vistula River.
Conclusions for employers – start with a simple budget
Both studies suggest a simple action plan. Rather than investing immediately in comprehensive programs, it’s better to start with a budget or mobility allowance that is free for employees, as the cost on the employee’s side most significantly reduces the attractiveness of such benefits. More complex options, such as flexible leasing or re-leasing, can be introduced in the next step, with investments in communication to explain how they work. It’s crucial to treat mobility as part of the benefits policy and employer branding, rather than merely an administrative matter.
The INQUIRY survey was conducted using CAWI from April 24 to May 8, 2026, among a sample of 603 employees from companies with at least 10 staff members operating in Warsaw, Kraków, Wrocław, Poznań, the Tri-City area, and Katowice. The full report is scheduled to be published in October 2026.
electromobilni.pl editorial team