Business Travel Risk Management: An ensemble of generic opinions, branding, marketing, business data, tourism statistics & quasi-scientific research

Business travel safety, security and risk management have a modest, disparate and immature literature foundation.

That is, when speaking to either 'business travel risk management', or any number of derivatives such as 'travel security', 'business travel safety' or 'business travel risk', practitioners, organisations and researchers will encounter a myriad of unrelated, opinion-centric and marking-dominated content in the form of books, articles, white papers and websites.

Each competing for popularity, universal application and 'status' within corporates, the travel industry and the remaining few vendors competing in a predominately insurance-driven market, with an after market representation in the form of information subscription(s) and templated, unsubstantiated, non-comparative scales of risk.

Recent attempts have seen the unification of these disparate and competing views in pursuit of 'standards', which, is often typical of seemingly universal standards, are the curated and promoted views of a few, channelled through sponsorship and paid endorsement mechanism, termed 'standards'.

However, there is nothing standard about them, nor is there clear, objective, academic nor scientific traceability to specific themes or claims of best in class or even best practice.

In short, business travel risk management as a subject, field of enquiry and an applied practice is a mixed bag of competing, unrelated, overstated and unsubstantiated anecdotal narrative.

Ironically, resulting in consideration liability and exposure for organisations and practitioners that 'follow the herd' or can't substantiate their claims and practices in a court, against expert witness(es), which is becoming a practice in its own right.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has seen some hasty attempts to fill these gaps, vulnerability, harm and vicarious liability continues to dominate the practice of business travel risk management, travel safety, travel security and 'safety' within a business travel setting.

Further research, validation and scrutiny is needed that assets organisations to understand and manage risk, resilience, safety and security in a business travel context.

But I've already demonstrated all this in my dissertation, in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Science (MSc) degree, from the Department of Criminology at the University of Leicester , in 2020.

I reinforced and further supported my findings with a follow up, academic contribution, exploring post-pandemic travel threats and risks

Which is why I'm now digging even deeper as the key theme and focus of my Doctorate in Public Safety, which I'm currently studying via the Faculty of Business, Justice and Behaviour Sciences at Charles Sturt University .

So I find myself, as part of the reflexive, iterative process, reevaluating my initial literature review and thematic segmentation, first undertaken a couple of year ago now.

The first discovery in the literature analysis was that most business travel risk management contributions lack universal definitions or even consistency across publications, authors and articles as to what precisely 'security', 'risk', 'safety' or even 'management' mean within the context of each contribution, let alone across a practicing body of knowledge.

In other words, without a consistent unit of measure, comparison and clarity remains forever elusive.

However, where keywords or thematic clustering occurred, greater scrutiny could be focused on determining if there was relationship, consistency or relevance in individual articles or collective representation of the theme.

This is where the secondary discovery occurred. That is, thematic topics within business travel risk management are represented by an immensely diverse array of authors, disciplines, content, theories, evidence and research.

In other words, the key themes within business travel, safety, security and risk management could just as easily be the product of a novice, company marketing statement or random magazine/blog entry, than that of qualified research and analysis.

The latter remaining the rarest of all...still. Even more apparent, is that in the past decade, more and more scholars, academics and researchers have drifted out of their lanes as it where, to comment and publish on the topic of business travel risk.

In other words, those with qualifications and credentials in other areas have had a go at commenting or enhancing the body of knowledge and sciences behind travel risk management.

Regrettably, many have rushed into the topic and replicated or laid foundations over past errors, oversights or unqualified opinion. This is most noticeable in the citation list(s) and bibliographic references accompanying the theory, article or submission. Where one has been provided or even considered, as many books, articles and 'white papers' continue to fail to cite even a single external reference or verifiable source supporting observations or theories.

Again, this is painfully apparent under cross-examination and submissions to the courts where torts (civil) or criminal claims have been made.

Too late to make this discovery, in my view.

A classic example of this would be the origins of the "duty of care" narrative that has reached near religious levels of following and support. All the apparent product of a HR generalist, with a mere handful of patchwork legal cases from around the globe, that has spawned so many theories, products and marketing campaigns, inclusive of seemingly altruistic foundations and entities to celebrate the worship of this topic. All the while lacking specificity and understanding that there are a number of legal proofs associated with liability, regulation, governance and management of overseas assignees, travellers and staff, ill considered or evaluated due to the seeming iconic nature of 'duty of care', and the promised catastrophes and 'end of days' that will follow if certain products, practices and beliefs are not followed to the letter.

Again, ironically, paving the way for a specific demonstration of negligence, inadequate procedures and unrelated practices that lead to or contributed to harm, resulting in legal disputes, claims and litigation.

Vendor liability is increasingly becoming the focus of these lines of enquiry too.

So few take the time or effort to evaluate the source of these theories and claims, routinely finding them unsubstantiated, anecdotal at best or fundamentally flawed, despite the popularity, branding or widespread acceptance.

But the third, and most significant, discovery was the manner and practice of stitching disparate themes, subjects and concepts into a single business travel risk management narrative.

That is, safety, security, risk, danger, fear, management, hazard, threat, crime, terrorism all shoehorned into a single article or theory, like Frankenstein's monster. Lacking even rudimentary means in which association or relevance was established or maintained.

In other words, the more dramatic, keyword inclusive, the greater the distribution, despite the weaker academic or scientific rigour.

Thus making the segmentation, retrieval and analysis of extant literature on business travel risk management all the more challenging for experts and laypeople alike.

Which all leads me to the revision of my original findings and updated literature review since 2020.

As, not surprisingly, there has been a plethora of publications, books, articles and contributions since the pandemic began.

Much like post 911 spawned an age of 'terrorism-pulp production', with an array of qualified and unqualified contributions, so too has the pandemic spawned a mountain of views, research and opinions on 'travel safety', some of which relates to business travel.

Having already reviewed and analysed hundreds of such resources, I have many miles to go before the task is complete or submission of my thesis on better safety, security, and risk management practices for individual international business travellers of all types.

But that is half the fun and the entire aim of an applied, Professional Doctorate.

One thing remains a constant or certainty thus far.

That is, no matter the increase in volume of publications and theories on the subject, the quality, repeatability, relevance and rigour association remains inversely low.

Moreover, with better understanding, more time and expert guidance, I'm able to build on my original premise and refine my arguments, which in turn has identified and opened up a whole new thematic array of issues and subject associated with not only transnational mobility of business travellers but also transnational criminology, corporate security, safety sciences, risk sciences and security risk management.

Therefore, this article is more a journal entry or milestone notation for the journey to date, for reflection and consideration as I advance in my studies, research and understanding.

It may also prove helpful for other researchers, practitioners, organisations and lawyers for the claimant.

In sum, business travel risk management remains a pot-pourri field of enquiry comprised of a broad, disparate array of themes, authors, brands and personal, unsubstantiated opinions, no matter how seemingly popular or widespread the application or acceptance.

Recent standards have only 'papered over' the lack of rigour, context and supporting evidence informing business travel risk management.

Furthermore, the mixed-bag, lucky dip nature of contributing research or literature is only further diffused and less defensible as more topics such as safety, security, risk, resilience, terrorism, crime, management or risk are introduced to the subject.

In short, business travel risk management has a way to go before there is an objective, reliable and defensible body of knowledge informing the practice.

As a result, consumers, practitioners, vendors, organisations and business travellers should remain cautious and alert to wholesale adherence and acceptance of any theory or guidance on the subject, lest you find your argument too weak or laden with liability in the event of legal challenge or claim(s).

Which is typically too late to review one's beliefs, practices and informing science(s). If there is any.

As more academics, scholars, practitioners, researchers and courts are discovering.

Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP CAS MSyI M.ISRM

Security, Risk, Resilience, Safety & Management Sciences