Not only do businesses need clear terms of reference and defined risk levels for their travel safety strategies, the risk levels cannot be generic and must specifically address the hazards for each traveler, journey, destination, and activity. Economic factors that could make safety measures reasonably practicable must also be considered. There must be clear evaluation of risk before and after to demonstrate reasonable practicability as required by law. Adaptive risk processes are needed as travel involves constant change.

1. CHAPTER SEVEN
ALARP
[As Low As
Reasonably
Practicable]

2. Duty of Care: A Buyer’s Guide to Travel Health, Safety and Security
Not only do businesses and travel risk managers need to have
a clear terms of reference in which to start and model their
strategy upon but they will also need to have clearly defined
levels, benchmarks or milestones for the outcome of their
efforts and the management of risk.
Generic low, medium and high indicators and levels are
useless and fall short of any acceptable risk management
practice. Not only are they non-contextual but they serve no
purpose in specifically addressing the risk tolerances and
identified hazards associated with the traveller, specific
journey, destination or the activity in which they are
conducting in the course of doing business while travelling.
Economic factors also need to be documented and
considered. If it can be demonstrated that a simple, cost
effective solution was both available and suitable for the
circumstances but not employed, then both the company and
manager will have a very difficult time in defending such
actions.
Calculus of negligence
It requires the weighing up of the risk in terms of its
likelihood and consequences against the time and trouble
associated with the measures required to control the risk
- E Bluff and R Johnstone, ‘The Relationship between
“reasonably Practicable” and Risk Management’ (2005)
18 Australian Journal of Labor Law 197 at 201-21
“

3. Duty of Care: A Buyer’s Guide to Travel Health, Safety and Security
While the “ALARP” principle is not legally binding, the
standard of “reasonably practicable” is very specific and
descriptive in its requirements. The cost and decision making
process however will likely be evaluated by objective sources
such as courts, public opinion and juries. It is when exposed
to these audiences that many “acceptable” standards
unravel.
There must be a clear before and after [post modifiers]
evaluation of risk in order to demonstrate reasonably
practicable.
Adap%ve
Processes:
Any
methodology
that
is
founded
only
on
the
‘here
and
now’
principle
with
regards
to
informa9on
and
assumed
understanding
will
fail.
Travel
is
a
constant
process
of
change
and
requires
a
risk
process
that
is
equally
adap9ve.
Page 25

4. If you’re interested in understanding
how to instantly evaluate, educate
and monitor the risk for every single
traveller and business trip as part of
your travel health, safety, security
and risk management
“
What begins as a workplace extension,
ends in a business anywhere opportunity
”
-­‐
Tony
Ridley
CEO
Intelligent
Travel