Policy Review -Market or Cost

I recently did an analysis for the executives to take to the owners of the company for approval.

I was working on what was thought to be a quick project; summarize the current situation, collect the data, analyze the data, provide a few options for recommendation.

The company pays a boot subsidy to all employee required to wear certified safety boots while at work.

So, I summarized our current process, policy and amount.

I collected data from collective agreements, compensation survey results, focus groups and network contacts.

I collected data on the price of boots that met the required standards for the 2 locations in the city where work boots are sold.

I received the total cost of the boot subsidy paid via employee pay stubs.

I analyzed a report of  expense claims for additional boots to see if there were trends of any area/group that went through more than 1 pair of boots a year.

What I found was that the market (other companies) were providing a subsidy/reimbursement greater than the cost of boots.

With a compensation strategy to be p50 or p90, does it make sense to increase the subsidy with the market even if the cost or allowance is more than what is required?

Then there is the additional background information of how frequently is the amount reviewed? How often is it increased as a result of the review. Does the increase and cost ever meet over the period between reviews?

Should the policy be reviewed in terms of who owns the policy, who owns the standards, how should the subsidy be administered as an expense claim or automatically on a pay stub as per meeting eligibility requirements?

What can start as a small project can grow as you seek higher and higher approval.

The underlining fact to point out is that it is called a subsidy not reimbursement and therefore by definition does not have to be 100% of the cost and perhaps a review of the name itself is required.