The Sun newspaper this week reported that Network Rail employees were choosing air travel — 9,212 flights' worth — because of its company travel policy.
The company's policy is very similar to that of many others — lowest logical cost. This policy apparently says that "air travel should be used where it represents the most cost effective option compared to the relevant train fare".
Network Rail's spokesman defends the policy saying it was in place "for good reason" as they are a public body using taxpayers' money.
However, Network Rail is the body responsible for the UK's rail infrastructure so its detractors might conclude that its opting for flights could be interpreted as not endorsing its own partners and sector.
The merits of looking at total trip cost rather than just the fare have been extensively argued. The merits of taking into account the cost to travel to station or meetings in addition to the fare might look sensible and obvious but how about the items that can't be added to an expenses claim?
For example, those that work for professional services are often encouraged to travel by rail despite the extra cost because they can then work onboard and thus increase their total billable time. The marginal cost of a higher rail fare would be outweighed by the benefit of more revenue.
There is a financial benefit to the company because of the choice of supplier but not from lowering the cost of travel.
Other brand and loyalty issues, such as the UK's provider of rail infrastructure choosing flights for reasons of cost, can be challenging if you want to work it into policy or calculate cost-benefit implications.
Many organisations have policies which prioritise doing business with partners, ie clients and customers, in their procurement policies. The benefits of choosing to give business to an organisation that gives you business — retaining a client, perhaps? — can be difficult to difficult to quantify. The same is true for brand protection. If a company is in the media and creative sector, its clients and potential clients are unlikely to be positively impressed if they discover their travellers stay in cookie cutter hotels to save money.
By the same token, an organisation that wants to be seen as inclusive might not want its chief executive to be seen checking into a property in the Dorchester Collection which is owned by the Sultan of Brunei where laws again homosexuality are draconian.
Choosing a form of transport or transient accommodation on the basis of cost has always been considered best practice. But organisations would be well advised to find a way of factoring the non-quantifiable factors into policy. Reputational damage may be impossible to assess in advance but its consequences — and costs - can be substantial.