Traveller anxiety is now a defining feature of business travel. We live in an uncertain world. In recent months we’ve seen airlines cease operating, key routes suspended and continued geopolitical volatility in many destinations.

Travellers are worried. The eighth annual edition of our Global Business Travel Survey shows 67% of business travellers are nervous about travelling for work this year. Nearly a third (31%) cite geopolitical instability or safety risks, while 28% point to disruption and delays. In a persistently unsettled environment, this level of anxiety cannot be treated as background noise – it must shape how travel programmes are designed and delivered.

Trust issues

But the challenge for travel managers is not just how to deal with traveller concern. There’s also growing confusion about who is responsible when things go wrong.

Our survey shows responsibility for traveller safety is not always clearly aligned, and that lack of clarity is eroding trust.
When we asked travellers who they believe is accountable for their safety, the answers were split. Some 37% say they hold themselves most responsible, while 27% say the responsibility sits primarily with their employer. That 27% is particularly important, as it has risen sharply from 18% in 2020. Expectations of employers have fundamentally shifted post pandemic.

This reflects a broader change in where people place their trust. Employees are increasingly looking to their employers, rather than governments or institutions, as their primary source of support and security. According to the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, among those whose trust in people or institutions has been impacted by major societal events, net trust in their CEO rose by nine points and in coworkers by 11 points, while trust in national government leaders fell by 16 points.

For corporate travel managers, that shift carries weight. Your travel programme is no longer just an operational function, it is a visible expression of organisational care.

Exposing the gaps

Generational trends suggest these trust expectations will only intensify. Older workers are more likely to see safety as their own responsibility, with 47% of boomers and 43% of Gen X taking that view. Among millennials and Gen Z, that drops to 35% and 33% respectively.

As your workforce becomes younger, expectations of employer-led duty of care will increase, and programmes designed for a more self-reliant traveller base might struggle to keep pace.

“Our survey shows responsibility for traveller safety is not always clearly aligned, and that lack of clarity is eroding trust”

Confidence levels are also uneven. Only 58% of business travellers say they are mostly or completely confident their organisation could extract them from a dangerous situation. Meanwhile, 28% are only somewhat confident, and 15% are not confident at all.

This is the trust gap in its clearest form. Employees are being asked to travel into risky environments on behalf of their organisation, but many are not convinced that organisation will be there for them if something goes wrong.

Who’s responsible?

There is also a misalignment among leadership teams. Just 38% of CFOs say their organisation is completely responsible for traveller safety, while 57% see the responsibility as shared but primarily resting with the employee, and 5% say their organisation holds no responsibility at all.

This is where risk and reality diverge. Duty of care is not optional. Organisations are legally bound to protect travelling employees, and that obligation does not diminish because responsibility feels shared or ambiguous. CFOs who regard safety as primarily the employee’s concern may be significantly underestimating their legal obligations.

Travel leaders, meanwhile, are acutely aware of the gap, with 87% concerned that their business is not doing enough to protect the safety of their travellers.

Duty of care needs to be framed as an ownership and execution challenge, with CFOs recognising organisational exposure, travel managers managing operational delivery, and travellers making real-time decisions on the ground. Without clarity across all three, the system is fragile and could break down.

concur.co.uk

For more on the SAP Concur report, see this news story.