It has long been apparent that travel managers implementing a company policy on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) face a formidable challenge.
Just how tough this is became clearer this week.
In the UK the Institute of Travel Management (ITM) set up a free legal helpline (see: ITM sets up legal helpline) to deal with queries on the country's new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide Act.
This law creates a new offence of corporate manslaughter. A company is guilty if mismanagement by senior executives amounting to gross negligence results in the death of an employee. Clearly it has implications for business travellers.
In Brussels this week, the 80 delegates attending the BATM/ACTE Forum were told by Jeroen Hurkmans, Advito's director for Western Europe, that CSR went far beyond green issues. (see: "CSR goes well beyond green issues" – Hurkmans).
Travel management does have a role in CSR. This was acknowledged in the Brussels Forum's presentations and workshops.
But the two issues together beg the question as to just what this role is and what exactly does it include.
Karsten Hecht, Advito's director central Europe, in his workshop, attempted to define "responsible travel management." This included reducing travel costs, meeting the travellers' needs, improving compliance, achieving income transparency, streamlining processes and adopting sustainable processes.
More specifically, there were two main categories: sustainability and accountability.
The first included assessing the environmental impact of your company's travel and looking at how to make it greener.
With constant regard to the costs, this included reducing travel by asking whether the trip was absolutely essential, promoting alternatives like teleconferencing and joining schemes to off-set CO2 emissions.
The second, accountability is the more complicated as it involves the duty of care and risk management. While the implications for travel managers responsible for travellers are clear, these are two wide and complex areas which seem to stretch beyond the obvious remit of a travel manager.
The duty of care has never been precisely defined. In one area of driving on company business, corporates are becoming more acute about the hours at the wheel on one day, the condition of the car, the state of the driver (i.e. is he or she driving straight from a long haul flight). But does it cover driving to or from work or is it the company's fault if the driver uses his own, badly-maintained vehicle?
Risk management is a far wider area. Should a traveller been sent to a risky area and if so what precautions should be taken. Or what happens if a bomb goes off in London – who is responsible for any company travellers there.
The Brussels delegates felt this was an area where others should be working in conjunction with a travel manager. Most probably this would be either from the company's own security and HR departments and or with a specialist risk control company with whom a growing number of TMCs and companies are now working.
These are areas which were well beyond the scope of a travel manager just a few years ago but in current times, green issues, duty of care and risk management are seen as integral to the job.
In Brussels the delegates said the travel manager's role in these areas was both "important" and "crucial." But the message also came across loudly that they should not and could not be the only ones responsible.
One said: "It is a crucial role as they will know where people are. But they are not the end people responsible and they should not be the only source that management uses."
What looks to be a solution is that as and when corporates adopt a policy on the whole ranges of issues covered by CSR, travel is made an integrated part of this programme – and travel managers play a prominent but not exclusive role.