[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

What are three top items that are overlooked in corporate travel risk assessment and management policies, and why?

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

The top 3 items overlooked in corporate travel risk assessment and management policies are the policies themselves, the generic coverage and pre-travel requirements.

Tony Ridley, CEO Intelligent Travel

The reason the policies are a problem is that they make the assumption that every journey and traveller are exactly the same. Therefore they should all use the same terms of reference or be addressed all the same in a single policy. They fail to adequately segment the policy to include those travelling the first time, senior/junior managers, gender, groups or those with special circumstances. It is more about convenience and appearance that this has been allowed to happen, if they looked at travellers as individual assets first, just like the rest of the business, then policies would be inclusive of the variations and requirements.

Generic coverage, that is “everyone going to this destination is the same” has resulted in the bad practice and dangerously inaccurate low, medium and high ratings apportioned to countries. This means that a first time traveller to a low risk location is not prepared for the basic environment and little things that can cause delay, disruption or personal safety issues. Equally, a very prepared and frequent traveller to a location is considered as at risk as the first timer or novice. Not so at all.

The culmination of these oversights is that the right people are not getting the right preparation and support. Businesses are wasting time and money on monitoring or categorising everyone the same for a particular location, rather than apportioning the highest support to the most at risk, regardless of the destination. This results in everyone getting the same very low level of education, training and preparation rather than starting with the most at risk, providing the most comprehensive education required and using the content to then educate everyone else in smaller, relevant portions. This would also reduce negative events and response costs.