Picture the scene. Dan's a seasoned traveller who often flies to various countries for meetings with his contacts. This week's trip is typical. He's booked his flights and hotel through the approved channels and his details are logged on the company's travel risk management system. He's received updates and alerts on his destination via his tracking app and there's nothing that should cause him too much concern. Arriving at the destination airport, he hails a taxi as usual and sets off for his hotel.
As a confident traveller, does it matter whether Dan makes use of local taxis or ride hail companies in each of his destinations? He complies with his corporate travel policy by using authorised channels to book his big ticket items, and there's nothing in the policy that tells him how he should then make his way to and from his hotel. As long as he's sensible, isn't that enough?
On the surface, it may seem OK but it's not always so black and white. Over the course of this short trip, Dan finds himself in four different vehicles. Despite pre-trip training, briefings, tracking and alerts, at those four points in his journey, Dan has entered a duty of care 'black hole' as far as his company is concerned.
Why it matters
What many organisations overlook is that the ground transportation element is the part of the journey that poses the highest risk to business travellers. With almost 1.3 million people losing their lives in road traffic accidents every year, and many millions more being seriously injured, the statistics speak for themselves. Add to this the risk of opportunistic crime, car jackings and assaults in many countries and the roads can be a very dangerous place indeed for today's business traveller.
Yet despite these numbers and despite almost every journey involving some form of ground transportation, it still remains, at best, an afterthought in many travel programmes. There's an underlying trend for companies to allow travellers to make their own choices about which ground transportation option they prefer, and even when more formalised policies are in place they often focus primarily on cost considerations and ease of booking.
Ignorance is bliss?
Taking ride-hailing as an example, according to the latest GBTA Business Traveller Sentiment Index, despite 58% of travel managers stating that they are concerned about the usage of app based ride-hailing services, 41% of policies do not address the usage of these apps at all. Rather than tackling the issue head on, many companies have what can only be described as 'don't ask, don't tell' policies around these services — not explicitly saying whether travellers can or can't use them but reimbursing expense claims when they do. By authorising the expense claims in this way they are, in effect, automatically authorising the usage of such services without having addressed the very serious and necessary safety and security, liability and legal concerns.
A legal, commercial and moral issue
Whether employees are driving themselves to a meeting across town, hailing a vehicle or are utilising the services of an authorised transportation service in another time zone, companies have an absolute duty of care to ensure that everything possible has been done to ensure their safety throughout the duration of that journey. Regardless of whether a booking has been made via an officially approved channel or the traveller has been left to make their own choices, the organisation's legal responsibility to that traveller is the same. It's their legal and moral duty to protect their people wherever they may be and however they may be travelling.
Dealing with a complex market
Policies, frameworks and due diligence
The fragmentation of the market and the differences in service and operating standards around the world obviously make it impossible for corporates to implement blanket policies in this area — which is potentially why many have avoided the issue almost completely. Complicated as it may be though, companies cannot continue to turn a blind eye. In order to meet duty of care obligations, policies do need to be in place and companies do need to be more prescriptive regarding the choices that their travellers should be making. Prescribing what people must do re flights and hotels from a cost and safety perspective but then not applying the same frameworks for ground transportation is simply not acceptable.
Keeping things simple
One way to keep things simple while still providing the necessary framework is to set ground transportation policies on a country by country basis. In low risk countries, it may be perfectly acceptable to allow travellers to make their own decisions about how they travel - whether they self-drive, arrange a taxi or use a ride-hailing service. As long as companies have undertaken the necessary due diligence; have outlined the authorised options within their policies; and the travellers have been provided with the necessary pre-travel training, allowing them to make educated decisions around their choices, then this should suffice in many cases.
In higher risk countries, organisations need to be far more prescriptive and take the responsibility out of the travellers' hands. Although it's unrealistic to expect corporate travel or security managers to be able to vet all potential suppliers, there are expert organisations — ground transportation and journey management service providers - who can do this for them. Booking ground transportation through one of these providers means that travellers will be met by pre-vetted, trained, identifiable individuals in specified vehicles. Although using a service like this can't guarantee the elimination of risk completely, it significantly reduces it.
Getting your travel policies in order
Even companies with a strong track record in travel safety and security can still have gaps when it comes to ground transportation considerations. Although not an exhaustive list, the table below highlights some of the key policy gaps to look out for and provides a little more information on each:
Does your travel policy omit safety and security considerations of ground transportation altogether? | It's all too common for travel policies that include ground transportation to focus purely on the cost implications and budget caps rather than the potential risks of the various options. |
Does the policy differentiate between different levels of seniority with one set of considerations for senior management and a different set for other employees? | Although arguably there may be occasions when senior management, due to their public personas, may potentially be more at risk than other employees, on the whole, the same safety considerations should be made for all. The duty of care obligation does not differ. |
Does your company fail to inform and educate travellers on general and specific risks re ground transportation? | Despite the shocking statistics on the number of deaths on the roads each year, road safety is not something that will automatically spring to mind for many when considering their next business trip. Although travellers may be more aware of the potential risks of falling victim to crime or assault, without the proper education, the 'laissez-faire' attitude of 'it'll never happen to me' will often push this to the back of the mind. |
Does your company document when they have advised employees on travel policy and safety and security? | An official policy is worthless if it's not clearly communicated to all, measures taken to demonstrate that this communication has taken place and steps taken to ensure buy in. |
Does your broader travel security programme focus purely on higher-risk foreign travel rather than including domestic travel and taking a door-to-door approach? | It's important to consider the entire journey when setting policies and providing guidelines. Ignoring factors such as employees driving themselves home from the airport after a long-haul flight can also put them at risk. |
Does your company authorise expense claims for ground transportation options that fall outside of official policy? | Turning a blind eye and authorising expense claims regardless is tantamount to approving the action. |
Are safety and security considerations a fundamental part of the ground transportation procurement criteria? | These need to be prioritised over all other factors. Nothing can be more important than ensuring the safety and security of your travellers. |
Rather than have informal and ad hoc procedures in place, businesses need to do their due diligence, determine what's right for their company and create policies to suit. This will ensure that their company is protected in the event of an accident, or worse. And most importantly, it will help ensure that their employees are safe and secure.
Facing the challenge head on
It's crucial that organisations pay very close attention to the ground transportation options that their travellers are using. Are policies in place to clearly define the company line? Are travellers advised on potential options? Is usage of certain providers being 'authorised by ignorance'?
Despite its often low profile in travel risk management discussions, the ground transportation part of the journey is the one that can pose the greatest threat to business travellers and is something that companies need to take serious steps to address.
There are more deaths on the world's roads every year than there are casualties of all the natural disasters, medical epidemics and terrorist attacks combined. Ground transportation forms part of almost every business trip. It's also the most dangerous part of every traveller's journey. Complex as it may be, it cannot be ignored.