At the end of April, we ran our first virtual Travel Policy Knowledge Exchange, building on two in-person workshops we’d held earlier in the year.
The virtual session brought a large, mixed group together, and what stood out straight away was how consistent the conversations were. It didn’t really matter whether people had joined us in the room previously or were dialling in for the first time, they were facing many of the same challenges.
In fact, one of the early polls summed it up quite neatly. Most people told us they already had a travel policy, but it “works with gaps”' That theme carried through the entire session.
Making policy work in practice
There wasn’t a sense that policies needed tearing up and starting again. Rather, people felt they had something that had grown over time, often through small changes, new rules or company shifts, but hadn’t been properly stepped back and reviewed.
A few attendees were starting from scratch, but most were somewhere in the middle, either refreshing what they had or trying to make it more relevant to how their organisation operates today.
It led to a useful reframing. The issue isn’t that travel policies are broken. It’s that they’re often incomplete, or no longer connected to the priorities of the business, and that alignment is what ultimately determines whether a policy works in practice.
Ownership came up again and again
One part of the discussion that really landed was around ownership. Where there is a clear owner of the policy, things tend to stay more current. Reviews happen, updates get made, and the policy stays aligned. In practice, that ownership often creates a natural rhythm of regular review, rather than policies only being revisited when something goes wrong. Though, where there isn’t, it tends to drift.
What was also interesting was how many teams are now involved, or at least need to be. Finance and procurement are often still leading, but HR, sustainability teams, and even regular travellers are playing a bigger role. When that mix is right, policies tend to feel more practical and easier to follow.
Another point that came through clearly was around explaining the “why”. A lot of policies tell people what to do, but not why they are being asked to do it. That gap often shows up later as lower engagement or workarounds.
The Quick Guide idea really stuck
If there was one concept people picked up and wanted to take away straight away, it was the idea of a one-page “Quick Guide”.
During the session, we asked people how confident they were that an employee could answer most travel questions without looking something up. The majority said they wouldn’t be very confident at all.
That’s where the Quick Guide comes in. It’s not trying to replace the full policy. It just gives people a simple, clear view of what good looks like.
Something like, book within policy rates using preferred suppliers. Book rail in standard class and in advance where possible. Keep it short and usable.
When we worked through examples live, there was a noticeable shift. People realised how much of their current wording focuses on what not to do. When they tried rewriting it into clear, positive guidance, it became much easier to follow.
A few groups also talked about linking out to live documents rather than trying to include everything in one place. That felt like a practical way to keep things up to date without constantly rewriting the policy.
The data is there, but not always used fully
Another theme that came up, both in the virtual session and the earlier workshops, was data.
Most organisations have good reporting on spend. That part is well covered. But when we got into behaviour, things became less clear. Several people said they capture reasons when travellers go outside policy, but don’t always go back and analyse them. That feels like a missed opportunity. There’s a lot to learn from why people aren’t following the expected path.
There was also some discussion about using data to start conversations rather than just report upwards. That might be with HR, finance or sustainability teams, depending on what is being looked at.
Some areas feel under control, others less so
When we moved into specific categories, rail and air prompted plenty of discussion. With rail, most policies already set class of travel clearly. Standard class is the norm. But when it came to ticket types, things were less consistent. Terms like “lowest logical fare” cropped up, but people admitted that means different things depending on who is booking.
There was recognition that clearer direction here could unlock savings, particularly around booking ahead and avoiding anytime tickets. Some organisations are looking beyond relying on policy wording alone, and looking to how booking tools like ClarityGo can support with policy aligned nudges to guide bookers.
Air felt more controlled overall, but still not without its gaps. Sustainability is starting to play a bigger role, especially when it comes to domestic flights versus rail, but approaches vary quite a bit between organisations.
Where people seemed less confident was around how clearly their policy explains decisions. For example, what “logical” really means in practice, or when a traveller should consider alternative options.
Meetings and events drew the biggest reaction
Towards the end of the session, we asked how well meetings and events are controlled compared to travel. The response was pretty clear. It’s not.
In many cases, there’s very little policy coverage, limited visibility of spend, and no consistent process. What stood out for a lot of attendees was the scale of the gap compared to how tightly managed things like air or hotels might be.
It also raised some wider questions. Not just about cost, but about visibility and duty of care. If you don’t know where meetings are happening or who is attending, it becomes harder to respond if something goes wrong.
No one expected to solve that in an hour, but for many it was the point where they realised where their next area of focus needed to be - bringing their travel, meetings and events together.
A practical mindset moving forward
What felt different about this session was the tone. People weren’t looking for a perfect policy. They wanted something that works better than what they have today.
There was a sense that progress comes from starting somewhere practical, whether that’s defining ownership, creating a simple Quick Guide, or tightening up one or two key areas.
The feedback afterwards reflected that. Attendees found it useful to step back, hear how others are approaching similar challenges, and take away ideas they could actually apply.
For us, it was a reminder that the most valuable conversations are often the simplest ones. What’s working, what isn’t, and what’s a realistic next step.
Practical next steps
If you’re thinking about where to start, a short review of your current policy is often the most practical first step. We regularly work with organisations to identify gaps, simplify guidance and align policies more closely to business priorities, we’d be happy to do the same with you.
