The Care Gap
Extending Duty of Care to Freelancers, Contractors, and Gig Workers
The contingent workforce by the numbers
The global workforce has been quietly restructured. The gig economy — projected to reach $674.1 billion in 2026 — now encompasses freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, and platform workers who travel on behalf of organizations every day. By 2027, freelancers are expected to constitute 50.9% of the US workforce alone. Yet the travel risk management frameworks most organizations rely on were designed for a different era: one where the traveler was always a full-time employee with a corporate card, a benefits package, and a clear line of accountability.
The result is a structural care gap. When a contractor flies to a client site, attends a conference on the company's behalf, or drives across a city for a gig platform, they carry the same physical risks as any employee — but typically none of the institutional safety net. Only 40% of American gig workers have access to medical insurance. Only 19% of travel managers, according to GBTA research, provide clear safety guidance for non-traditional traveler groups. Courts, insurers, and regulators are beginning to notice.
"The question is not whether you employed them — it is whether you sent them. If you directed the travel, you own a share of the risk."
Emerging consensus in post-2021 duty-of-care litigation
1. The Legal Landscape: Duty of Care Beyond Employment
Duty of care is not a concept that stops at the employment contract. Its foundations — foreseeability and reasonableness — apply wherever an organization exercises control over another person's activities. The landmark Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) "neighbor test" established that a duty is owed to anyone who could foreseeably be harmed by an action or omission. Modern courts have extended this logic aggressively.
The Herrera precedent: foreseeability extends to third parties
In Herrera v. Quality Pontiac (2003), a US court held an auto shop liable for damages caused by a stolen car — because theft was a foreseeable outcome of leaving keys in the ignition. The principle translates directly to travel: if an organization arranges or directs travel for a non-employee, and a foreseeable risk materializes, the organization may share liability even if the direct harm was caused by a third party.
Travel Management Companies are not a shield
TMCs and travel agents owe a duty to warn travelers of known, specific, and non-obvious dangers. However, they are not insurers of traveler safety and are generally not liable for the negligence of independent third-party suppliers — unless an "apparent agency" relationship exists. This means the hiring organization, not the TMC, typically carries the primary duty of care for non-employee travelers it directs.
The misclassification time bomb
Many organizations classify workers as independent contractors to avoid obligations like workers' compensation. But courts use "right to control" tests to determine actual status. California's AB5 "ABC test" has set a high bar for contractor classification. If a travel-related injury triggers a successful misclassification claim, the organization becomes retroactively liable for employee-level benefits — including medical costs and lost wages — for the entire engagement.
Parallel legal regimes that apply
- 🇬🇧UK — Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 applies to "persons not in employment" affected by work activities
- 🇺🇸US — OSHA General Duty Clause + state-level ABC tests for worker classification
- 🇪🇺EU — Framework Directive 89/391/EEC covers all workers, including those in atypical employment
- 🇦🇺Australia — Model WHS Act industrial-manslaughter extensions cover "workers" broadly, including contractors
- 🌐ISO 31030:2021 — explicitly covers "travellers travelling on behalf of the organization," regardless of employment status
2. The Risk Profile: What Makes Non-Traditional Travelers Different
Three structural vulnerabilities that employees don't face
No institutional safety net
Only 40% of American gig workers have access to medical insurance. A work-related injury during travel can mean devastating personal financial exposure — full medical bills, lost income, and no workers' compensation pathway. 80% of full-time freelancers report difficulty paying an unexpected $1,000 expense. A serious travel incident can be financially catastrophic.
Financial pressure drives unsafe behavior
Income volatility and algorithmic management create unique pressures. Contractors may work while fatigued or ill to maximize earnings. Gig platform workers can be "deactivated" without explanation, creating anxiety that compels risk-taking. Unlike employees, they have no paid sick leave to fall back on — so the rational economic choice is often the unsafe one.
Excluded from safety systems
Most corporate travel risk management systems — traveler tracking, pre-trip briefings, emergency assistance programs, real-time alerts — are configured for employees only. Non-traditional workers are invisible to these systems. They receive no pre-travel safety briefing, no access to 24/7 assistance lines, and no integration into crisis communication protocols. When an incident occurs, the organization often doesn't even know they were traveling.
3. What ISO 31030 and GBTA Say
The good news is that the frameworks already exist. ISO 31030:2021 — the international standard for travel risk management — explicitly covers "travellers travelling on behalf of the organization." This definition is broad enough to encompass contractors, consultants, and other non-employees. The standard does not distinguish between employment types; it distinguishes between organizational control and personal travel.
GBTA: the policy gap is measurable
- Only 19% of travel managers provide clear safety guidance for diverse or non-traditional traveler groups
- Travel for non-employees (interview candidates, interns, contractors) is typically managed ad-hoc, without formal policies
- GBTA recommends centralizing "guest" travel management to ensure consistent application of safety protocols
- Personal safety training should be considered for all workers who travel, not just full-time employees
ISO 31030 applied to contingent workers
- Risk identificationAssess threats based on the individual's profile (health, experience, local knowledge), destination, and nature of work — not just employment status.
- Pre-travel briefingsProvide destination-specific safety information, emergency contact protocols, and insurance coverage details before any trip.
- Assistance program accessEnsure non-traditional travelers have access to 24/7 medical and security assistance — either through the corporate program or a separately arranged policy.
- Traveler trackingIntegrate contractors into traveler location systems with appropriate consent and GDPR-compliant data handling.
- Post-trip debriefCapture incident data and near-misses from non-employee travelers to feed back into risk assessments.
4. Four Scenarios Where the Gap Becomes a Liability
These are not hypotheticals. Each scenario reflects a pattern of real claims and legal actions.
Third-party injury claim
A contractor traveling to a client site is injured in a road accident caused by a negligent local driver. They cannot file a workers' compensation claim. If the organization arranged the travel and failed to warn of known road hazards, it may face a direct negligence claim alongside the at-fault driver.
Premises liability at client or hotel
A freelance consultant slips on an unmarked wet floor at a client's office. If the client booked the accommodation and had knowledge of the unsafe condition, it may share liability with the property owner — regardless of the consultant's contractor status.
Misclassification reclassification
A gig worker severely injured during a delivery challenges their contractor classification. If the court finds the platform exerted sufficient control to constitute employment, the company becomes retroactively liable for workers' compensation benefits covering the full medical and income loss.
Failure to warn — foreseeable threat
A contractor travels to a destination where a specific, publicly-known security threat exists. The organization had access to the intelligence but did not share it. Post-incident, the failure to warn is treated as a breach of the duty of care — the same standard applied to employees under ISO 31030.
5. The Implementation Roadmap
Six steps to close the care gap
Map your non-traditional traveler population
Identify every category of non-employee who travels on behalf of your organization: contractors, consultants, freelancers, interns, interview candidates, agency staff. Quantify the volume and destinations. Most organizations are surprised by the scale.
Update your travel policy scope
Explicitly define which non-employee categories are covered, under what circumstances (e.g., when travel is booked or funded by the organization), and what resources are available to them. Ambiguity in policy scope is the single most common source of post-incident liability.
Extend pre-travel briefings
Require destination-specific safety briefings for all organization-directed travel, regardless of employment status. This is the minimum defensible position under ISO 31030 and the most frequently cited gap in post-incident reviews.
Provide or arrange assistance coverage
Either extend your corporate travel assistance program to cover non-employees, or require contractors to hold a minimum level of travel insurance as a condition of engagement. Document the requirement and the coverage in the contract.
Integrate into traveler tracking
Configure your traveler location and communication systems to include non-employee travelers with appropriate consent. In a crisis, the inability to locate a contractor is both a safety failure and a legal exposure.
Review contractor classification
Work with legal counsel to audit your contractor classifications against the applicable tests in each jurisdiction where you engage non-traditional workers. Misclassification risk is highest in California, the UK, and EU member states with strong worker-protection regimes.
6. What TRSS Sees in the Field
The organizations that handle non-traditional workforce travel well share one characteristic: they treat the question of employment status as irrelevant to the question of safety obligation. If the organization directed the travel, it owns a share of the risk — and it manages that risk accordingly. The ones in trouble are those that have excellent employee travel programs and a complete blind spot for the contractors sitting in the same meeting rooms, flying on the same routes, and staying in the same hotels.
The care gap is not a compliance technicality. It is a structural vulnerability that is growing as the contingent workforce grows. The organizations that close it now will be ahead of the regulatory and litigation curve. The ones that don't will meet it in a courtroom — or in a coroner's inquest.
The gig economy has permanently altered the composition of the traveling workforce. The legal frameworks, the ISO standards, and the GBTA guidance have all caught up to this reality. The only thing that hasn't, in most organizations, is the travel risk management program itself. Closing the care gap is not a complex undertaking — it requires policy clarity, system integration, and a willingness to extend the same standard of care to every person traveling on your behalf, regardless of how they are classified on a contract.