Risk mitigation: Is trust just leaving it to chance?

Gary Hurst is the founder of serviced accommodation technology specialist mysa

When you reflect on one of the most extraordinary aircraft events in recent times – probably since US Airways flight 1549 ditched into the Hudson River – you realise how much trust we assign to others to keep us safe. As Japan Airlines flight 516 was forcefully brought to a standstill at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport earlier this month, I imagine 379 passengers praying for a miracle, that somehow the emergency evacuation procedure training of the JAL staff would help get them off that plane safely.

When I first viewed the footage, it belied belief that not only would every single person on that plane be helped to escape to safety but, bar one person, do so without much more than the odd bruise. It was an incredible demonstration, in the ultimate circumstances, of the airline’s internal training standards in risk awareness, mitigation, duty of care and traveller safety priorities.

According to one commentator, JAL has a reputation of being a world leader in aviation safety. On the evidence of this event, they have gone someway to substantiate that claim.

Fast forward a few days and we were similarly applauding the incredible calmness of the pilots and cabin staff of Alaska Airlines flight 1282 after it was forced into an emergency landing soon after taking off from Portland, Oregon.

It was evidence again of an airline’s training protocols in disaster preventative measures so that, if called upon, they can mitigate risk to travellers to the maximum. It is also indicative of the high level of competence airlines must demonstrate to remain in line with aviation regulations.

Every time we travel, we put a huge amount of trust in many different organisations and individuals. Not just the key components of a trip – the taxi companies, airport staff, airlines, accommodation providers – but also, in the case of business travel, the ultimate decision makers who have the responsibility of deciding who provides those services for their colleagues. That’s a lot of trust to bestow on others and a lot of responsibility to shoulder for those who make those decisions.

When making decisions, the human instinct is to rely heavily on
evidence. How often do we read reviews or rely on other people’s
experience before we book or buy anything? So how much can we rely on trust alone and when should we replace it with evidence?

Accommodation providers are not bound by the same level of verification and regulation as airlines. But the risk for travellers staying in hotels and apartments is also high when you consider how many recent incidents there have been at ground level which have directly or indirectly affected guests. Terrorism, conflict, events of nature, fire disasters and, most astonishingly, buildings simply collapsing. Without evidence of safety, security and guest welfare standards and procedures, trust is significantly counteracted by risk.

Global travel is often complex, with many moving components making risk mitigation challenging. However, the actual physical element of accommodation is not one of them. This is the single component of a trip where a person is exposed to consistent surroundings and where they are likely to spend most of their time. Therefore, it is the one area that risk mitigation, duty of care and traveller wellbeing should be more manageable through evidence.

However, I am astounded at how much travel buyers, in the main, are forced to rely on trust rather than evidence, a process somewhat short of the benchmark set for organisations by travel risk management standard ISO31030. The standard calls attention to the importance of risk assessments and substantiated due diligence with particular attention to the management of vendors and partners.

As we near the end of the 21st century’s first quarter – a period during which the digital evolution has exploded – why are travel buyers, when managing their hotel RFP, often still reliant on what is essentially a check-list as part of their due diligence? That’s a lot of trust with zero substantiated evidence. It doesn’t even scratch the surface of risk mitigation.

There is over-riding trust that somebody, somewhere has done the proper checks, but with no legislation to enforce this, it becomes a duty of care responsibility that the organisation has to bear the responsibility for.

Business travellers have always had their personal safety front of mind, but the current level of trust in those that provide a place to stay is no longer enough. Employees need to be reassured that every opportunity to reduce potential risks to their safety and wellbeing is being taken. Their mindsets have changed – perhaps in part due to the Covid pandemic – and they expect maximum, not minimum mitigation.

Obviously, we cannot rely on after-the-event analysis such as that of the Japan Airlines or Alaska Airlines incidents to provide peace of mind that every preventative risk and emergency procedure measure is in place. But surely, with such advanced technologies available, we can do better than relying on a basic tick-box exercise as part of the risk mitigation process.

Everyone assumes everything is ok – until it isn’t. That is when a checklist gets called into question, and without supporting evidence, it becomes exceptionally difficult to prove maximum due diligence was exercised.