Leisure and Hospitality

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Bag-Checks-At-Hotels-Unlikely-To-Become-New-Normal,-Expert-Says.aspxBag Checks At Hotels Unlikely To Become New Normal, Expert SaysGP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-10-04T04:00:00Zhttps://adminsm.asisonline.org/pages/megan-gates.aspx, Megan Gates<p>​In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting that killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 others, many are wondering if hotels will change their security policies and procedures. </p><p>One area of concern is if hotels will begin implementing bag checks because gunman Stephen Paddock was able to smuggle 23 firearms, along with other equipment, into his suite at Mandalay Bay to carry out Sunday’s massacre.<br></p><p>The Wynn resort in Las Vegas—located on the opposite end of the Vegas Strip from the Mandalay Bay resort—introduced security guards on Monday afternoon to screen visitors with metal-detector wands. It also implemented a bag check, which created a 10-minute wait to get inside the facility. <br></p><p>This is unlikely to become the new normal for hotel security in the near future, however, says Russell Kolins, CEO of the Kolins Security Group and chair of the ASIS International Hospitality, Entertainment, and Tourism Security council.<br></p><p>“Hotels are in the business of selling privacy—they’re offering hospitality and selling privacy,” Kolins explains, adding that hotels would likely start to lose business if they began checking bags—especially in locations like Las Vegas. <br></p><p>“In Vegas especially, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” Kolins says. “People bring items they don’t want other people to see.”<br></p><p>At airports, travelers are subject to bag searches—as well as body scans—because they are a different kind of target than a hotel. Travelers also have no expectation of privacy while on a plane, except for in the bathroom, unlike in a hotel where travelers expect privacy within their room, Kolins says.<br></p><p>One policy that might need to be revisited following the shooting, however, is how hotels handle checking rooms that have a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door. <br></p><p>Paddock checked into the Mandalay Bay on Thursday and kept a “Do Not Disturb” sign on his hotel door throughout his stay. This meant hotel cleaning staff did not enter his room, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-gunman.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">according to a hotel worker who spoke to The New York Times,​</a> because housekeeping is only allowed to enter a room with such a sign on it if a security guard is present.<br></p><p>Requiring a security guard be present to enter rooms with privacy signs is the right move, Kolins says, but hotels should consider changing their policies to require room checks every other day.<br></p><p>“That’s an arbitrary period of time, but I think a policy should be instilled to at least check on the rooms,” Kolins says, adding that hotels would have to make patrons aware of the policy. But such a policy could, potentially, prevent an individual from using a hotel room for an extended period of time to plot a criminal act.<br></p><p>Kolins leads a team of court-certified security experts at his firm. He says he thinks it’s unlikely that Mandalay Bay will be sued for negligence for the shooting because to sue for negligence, plaintiffs must be able to show foreseeability. <br></p><p>“This is unprecedented—nothing like this has ever happened,” Kolins explains. “If something happens the first time, it’s not foreseeable.”<br></p><p>Now that such an attack has happened, though, if a similar attack happens plaintiffs could potentially bring a lawsuit saying it was foreseeable. In response, Kolins says he expects the hotel security industry to begin having seminars and tabletop meetings to determine how they would handle a similar case.<br></p><p>“I think what this has done is show that the slogan ‘expect the unexpected’ is again proven to be true,” Kolins says. “It wasn’t foreseeable because it was unprecedented.”​<br></p>

Leisure and Hospitality

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Bag-Checks-At-Hotels-Unlikely-To-Become-New-Normal,-Expert-Says.aspx2017-10-04T04:00:00ZBag Checks At Hotels Unlikely To Become New Normal, Expert Says
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/House-Rules.aspx2017-09-01T04:00:00ZQ&A: House Rules
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Houston’s-Game-Day-Solutions.aspx2017-07-01T04:00:00ZHouston’s Game Day Solutions
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Terrorists-Check-In.aspx2017-05-01T04:00:00ZTerrorists Check In
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Industry-News-December-2016.aspx2016-12-01T05:00:00ZIndustry News December 2016
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/November-2016-Industry-News.aspx2016-11-01T04:00:00ZNovember 2016 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/It-Sounded-Like-an-Avalanche.aspx2016-09-10T04:00:00ZIt Sounded Like an Avalanche
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Vehicle-Access-at-Stadiums.aspx2016-08-23T04:00:00ZVehicle Access at Stadiums
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Casino-Makes-a-Sure-Bet.aspx2016-06-01T04:00:00ZA Casino Makes a Sure Bet
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Industry-News-May-2016.aspx2016-05-01T04:00:00ZIndustry News May 2016
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Industry-News-March-2016.aspx2016-03-01T05:00:00ZIndustry News March 2016
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Defensive-Stance.aspx2016-03-01T05:00:00ZA Defensive Stance
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Industry-News-January-2016.aspx2016-01-01T05:00:00ZIndustry News January 2016
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Q-and-A---Ashly-Helser.aspx2016-01-01T05:00:00ZMall Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Restaurant-Security---A-Tale-of-Turnover-and-Technology.aspx2015-12-01T05:00:00ZWhat McDonald’s Approach to Biometrics says About the Future of Restaurants
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Safety-at-Sea.aspx2015-07-20T04:00:00ZSafety at Sea
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/High-Stakes.aspx2015-04-01T04:00:00ZHigh Stakes
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/session-coverage-60th-annual-asis-international-seminar-and-exhibits-0013819.aspx2014-10-29T04:00:00ZSession Coverage From The 60th Annual ASIS International Seminar and Exhibits
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Wagering-on-Preparation.aspx2014-09-01T04:00:00ZWagering on Preparation
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/cruise-line-security-0013272.aspx2014-04-01T04:00:00ZCruise Line Security

 You May Also Like...

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Bag-Checks-At-Hotels-Unlikely-To-Become-New-Normal,-Expert-Says.aspxBag Checks At Hotels Unlikely To Become New Normal, Expert Says<p>​In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting that killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 others, many are wondering if hotels will change their security policies and procedures. </p><p>One area of concern is if hotels will begin implementing bag checks because gunman Stephen Paddock was able to smuggle 23 firearms, along with other equipment, into his suite at Mandalay Bay to carry out Sunday’s massacre.<br></p><p>The Wynn resort in Las Vegas—located on the opposite end of the Vegas Strip from the Mandalay Bay resort—introduced security guards on Monday afternoon to screen visitors with metal-detector wands. It also implemented a bag check, which created a 10-minute wait to get inside the facility. <br></p><p>This is unlikely to become the new normal for hotel security in the near future, however, says Russell Kolins, CEO of the Kolins Security Group and chair of the ASIS International Hospitality, Entertainment, and Tourism Security council.<br></p><p>“Hotels are in the business of selling privacy—they’re offering hospitality and selling privacy,” Kolins explains, adding that hotels would likely start to lose business if they began checking bags—especially in locations like Las Vegas. <br></p><p>“In Vegas especially, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” Kolins says. “People bring items they don’t want other people to see.”<br></p><p>At airports, travelers are subject to bag searches—as well as body scans—because they are a different kind of target than a hotel. Travelers also have no expectation of privacy while on a plane, except for in the bathroom, unlike in a hotel where travelers expect privacy within their room, Kolins says.<br></p><p>One policy that might need to be revisited following the shooting, however, is how hotels handle checking rooms that have a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door. <br></p><p>Paddock checked into the Mandalay Bay on Thursday and kept a “Do Not Disturb” sign on his hotel door throughout his stay. This meant hotel cleaning staff did not enter his room, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-gunman.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">according to a hotel worker who spoke to The New York Times,​</a> because housekeeping is only allowed to enter a room with such a sign on it if a security guard is present.<br></p><p>Requiring a security guard be present to enter rooms with privacy signs is the right move, Kolins says, but hotels should consider changing their policies to require room checks every other day.<br></p><p>“That’s an arbitrary period of time, but I think a policy should be instilled to at least check on the rooms,” Kolins says, adding that hotels would have to make patrons aware of the policy. But such a policy could, potentially, prevent an individual from using a hotel room for an extended period of time to plot a criminal act.<br></p><p>Kolins leads a team of court-certified security experts at his firm. He says he thinks it’s unlikely that Mandalay Bay will be sued for negligence for the shooting because to sue for negligence, plaintiffs must be able to show foreseeability. <br></p><p>“This is unprecedented—nothing like this has ever happened,” Kolins explains. “If something happens the first time, it’s not foreseeable.”<br></p><p>Now that such an attack has happened, though, if a similar attack happens plaintiffs could potentially bring a lawsuit saying it was foreseeable. In response, Kolins says he expects the hotel security industry to begin having seminars and tabletop meetings to determine how they would handle a similar case.<br></p><p>“I think what this has done is show that the slogan ‘expect the unexpected’ is again proven to be true,” Kolins says. “It wasn’t foreseeable because it was unprecedented.”​<br></p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Securing-Sacred-Spaces.aspxSecuring Sacred Spaces<p>​Christians were gathered in churches around the world to celebrate Palm Sunday on April 9, 2017, marking the beginning of Holy Week. During this time of year, many Christians share in a renewal of their faith as they remember the pilgrimage that Jesus took before his death and resurrection.</p><p>At Saint George Church in Tanta, Egypt, the church was full. Scriptures were read. Songs were sung. Somewhere between welcome and amen, a bomb exploded—killing at least 25 people and wounding dozens of parishioners and members of the clergy.</p><p>Investigators reportedly believe, according to CNN and other media reports, that someone had placed an explosive device under a seat in the prayer hall. Exactly how the bomb was detonated is still unknown.</p><p>As emergency personnel were working to secure the scene at Saint George, a second attack occurred just outside of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Alexandria, Egypt. </p><p>The church service had just ended and people were leaving the building when a man arrived wearing a zipped-up jacket with one hand in his pocket. A security officer denied the visitor access to the cathedral and referred him to the metal detector outside the church’s entrance.</p><p>The man can be seen on video talking with the officer and then walking towards the metal detector. He walked a few steps past it, turned, entered the metal detector frame, and detonated a bomb, killing at least 11 people—including three police officers—and wounding 35 others. The actions of the security officer and the use of the metal detector saved numerous lives that day.</p><p>Between the two attacks, 43 people died and approximately 100 were injured. ISIS claimed responsibility for both attacks and warned that there would be more attacks in the future against Christians, police, and the military, according to CNN.</p><p>However, these attacks left many questions unanswered. Details such as how the bombers picked their targets, whether they were working together, and what advance preparations they had made all remained a mystery.</p><p>Did the bombers choose these congregations based on the size of the facilities? It appears that the attackers selected a day in which they knew more people would be present at the churches, possibly in an attempt to create more terror and politicize them as an assault on Christianity. A similar attack at a Christian church in Alexandria on New Year’s Day in 2011 killed 21 and injured 96, according to The Telegraph. Christians have been targeted in several attacks in Egypt, which explains the enhanced security precautions in place on Palm Sunday in 2017.</p><p>These bombings prompt several questions. What can be done to prevent an attack from occurring in our respective places of worship? Will it become customary to have a bomb-sniffing dog search the premises? Will metal detectors become a common feature outside religious and cultural properties?</p><p>“There is no commonly accepted or developed profile of a suicide bomber,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) wrote in Protecting Your Jewish Institution in 2015. “The only characteristic accepted by experts is that the overwhelming majority are prepared to die in the service of their cause.”</p><p>Security leaders are faced with the challenge of preventing an act that someone else is determined to achieve, even in the face of death. </p><p>We have known for years that the Islamic State wants to destroy Western culture, and that they plan to attack various locations, including houses of worship, bus stops, airports, hospitals, schools, shopping venues, concert halls, night clubs, parades, sporting events, and other places with large gatherings of people. Additionally, we are experiencing more attacks by individual terrorists with various affiliations, as seen in recent attacks using vehicles in Paris and London. </p><p>The ADL reported in January 2017 that bomb threats have increased. In addition, there is an increase in anti-Semitic assaults on college campuses. As a result, the league has updated some of its resources to assist synagogues with their security plans as they seek to secure places of wor­ship, religious artifacts, and those attending services.</p><p>The Muslim community is not exempt from crime, and has reported increases in incidents of violence and vandalism, most of which are suspected to be committed by homegrown extremists in response to terror acts committed across the globe. In the Middle East, extremists often target more moderate Muslims as they seek to impose Sharia Law.</p><p>Houses of worship around the world are faced with various challenges as they try to secure their facilities, people, and programs with limited budgets and resources. A congregation of 1,000 will have some of the same challenges as a congregation of 100, but it will have more resources. Smaller congregations may not face the same complexities as larger organizations but they may still encounter violence.</p><p>For example, when 21-year-old Dylann Roof entered the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17, 2015, only 12 parishioners were present.</p><p>Every church throughout the world has the same goal: to provide a safe place to worship. We can implement interior and exterior controls and follow best practices to prevent many types of crimes. However, nothing can protect houses of worship from a bombing except denied access.​</p><h4>Bombings in the United States</h4><p>The most notorious church bombing in the United States occurred in September 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama, at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. A bomb exploded in the building, killing four African-American girls during a service and injuring at least 14 others. Three former Ku Klux Klan members were eventually convicted of murder for the bombing.</p><p>Between 1970 and 2007, there were 25 terrorist attacks against religious figures or institutions in the United States; nine of the 25 attacks involved explosives or bombings, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Nine of those attacks targeted Jewish institutions.</p><p>The FBI also tracks hate crimes against individuals and religious institutions, with a reported 1,402 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in 2015, according to the Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics 2016. </p><p>Those crimes primarily targeted Jews (52 percent), Muslims (22 percent), Catholics (4 percent), and individuals of varying religious groups (4 percent).</p><p>This was an increase from figures released in 2015, when the FBI reported that there were 1,140 victims of religious hate crimes in the United States. Hate crimes, as defined by the FBI, include traditional crimes—like murder, arson, or vandalism—that are motivated by bias.</p><p>For example, in January 2012 in Rutherford, New Jersey, several Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices were thrown at a synagogue, starting a fire in the second-floor bedroom of the rabbi’s residence. This was deemed the fourth bias incident in a month against a Jewish religious institution. Other incidents included a fire that was intentionally set and graffiti at two synagogues. ​</p><h4>Bombings Suspects</h4><p>The profile of a bomber in the United States may be different from what security professionals expect. It could be a jilted spouse or lover who is seeking revenge at the end of their romantic involvement. It could be former business partners or employees looking for retribution when a business relationship goes south. It could also be the work of a terrorist—foreign or homegrown—trying to make a political statement toward a specific person or group.  </p><p>As of this writing, most bombings in the United States are carried out by an individual working alone. Further investigations after the fact generally indicate that a spouse or family member had suspicions about the bomber’s behaviors, but did not seek help. </p><p>While security cannot anticipate the moves of a bomber, there are a few behavioral characteristics that could be considered suspicious.</p><div><span style="white-space:pre;"> </span></div><p>• Nervousness, including sweating, tunnel vision, and repeated, inappropriate prayers or muttering, as well as repeated entrances and exits from the building.</p><p>• Inappropriate, oversized, and loose-fitting clothing.</p><p>• Concealed hands, such as in pockets, to hold a triggering device.</p><p>• Favoring one side or area of the body, as if wearing something unusual or uncomfortable.</p><p>• Projected angles under clothing, such as those that would indicate the individual is carrying a firearm at the waist or ankle.</p><p>• Constantly adjusting clothing.</p><p>• Carrying packages or backpacks.</p><p>When this kind of behavior is observed, the “See Something, Say Something” principle is applicable. However, at religious institutions, if at all possible, congregants should be encouraged to leave the area.</p><p>Reports should be made to a law enforcement officer if possible. If law enforcement is not available at the location, individuals have the option to investigate on their own, report suspicions to church staff, or do nothing. In these instances, security professionals should trust their instincts.​</p><h4>PREVENTING A BOMBING</h4><p>The attacker could use a mail bomb or a placed bomb. Placed bombs, like the one used in the Boston Marathon bombing, injure indiscriminately and can be concealed in boxes, backpacks, briefcases, and purses. </p><p>There is no certain way to prepare for a bombing. As witnessed with the Boston Marathon bombing, members of the public are vulnerable at events and in crowds. Someone can enter a facility with intent to do harm and there is little security can do to stop him or her.</p><p>But, just as Boston responded quickly with paramedics and doctors, houses of worship need to be prepared with security and safety measures. </p><p>Places of worship need video cameras for successful identification of attackers. Congregants must be diligent in their observations of attendees who might intend harm. They also need to be observant of behavior that is unusual, such as a person who attempts to enter a church after the service had ended, as the second Palm Sunday bomber did. </p><p>As a precautionary step, religious institutions’ office personnel should be trained about mail bombs and suspicious packages, such as the pipe bomb that was mailed to a Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, in January 1990.</p><p>The pastor’s daughter, director of ministries for the church, opened the package addressed to her father, suffering minor burns and bruises, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Access control is key to a secure environment, as the Tanta, Egypt, bombing shows. Someone was able to place a bomb inside the sanctuary, showing that someone had access to the facility prior to the start of the service.</p><p>Staff should also be advised to keep offices and desks locked when they are not in use to avoid creating hiding places for explosives. Staff should also ensure that utility janitorial closets, boiler rooms, mail rooms, computer offices, switchboards, and elevator control rooms are locked at all times.</p><p>Additionally, trash receptacles—especially dumpsters—should be locked and located far from the building. The area around the receptacles should also be free of debris. As demonstrated by the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, cars and trucks should be required to maintain a safe setback from the facility. </p><p>A security plan should also include an evacuation plan for the facility with a designated meeting point to ensure that everyone is safe, should it be used. Places of worship should also be equipped with medically trained staff, first aid kits, and ambulatory services to quickly respond, should an attack take place.</p><p>There are no easy answers to this disturbing dilemma. There is no easy way to predict when or where a bombing may occur. There are even fewer ways to prevent it. As security leaders, we must be diligent in our observations of human behavior. </p><p><em>Paula L. Ratliff is the coauthor of </em>Crime Prevention for Houses of Worship<em>, the first book published on the topic in 2001 and the author of the second edition. She began researching crimes against religious facilities in the early 1990s and has written several articles on crime prevention for places of worship. She is a member of ASIS International and a graduate of the University of Louisville.        ​</em></p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Terrorists-Check-In.aspxTerrorists Check In<p>​Just after 8:00 a.m. on January 25, attackers detonated a truck bomb outside the gates of the Dayah Hotel in the Somali capital of Mogadishu before storming inside. Fifteen minutes later, another truck bomb exploded, and security forces were dispatched to take control of the hotel. </p><p>The hotel, located near Somalia’s Parliament building, was said to be popular with lawmakers and government officials. That may have made it a target for the attackers—later identified as al-Shabaab, an extremist group linked to al Qaeda, whose attacks are designed to turn Somalia into a fundamentalist Islamic state.</p><p>The attack in January killed at least 21 people and injured more than 50, according to CNN. It was just the latest in a succession of recent attacks on soft targets in Africa and Europe, and it raised awareness of a global and shifting threat that no international business can ignore: the risk of an attack on a hotel where a traveling employee is staying.</p><p>Since 2002, more than 30 major terrorist attacks have targeted hotels across the world. Because of this outbreak of attacks, businesses, tourism professionals, and hoteliers themselves are calling hotel risk procedures into question.​</p><h4>Hotels as Soft Targets</h4><p>Hotels became major targets for bomb attacks by terrorists in Asia in the 2000s, and the threat has since moved to Africa. Attacks against hotels in 2015 and 2016 accounted for a third of all major terrorist attacks in the world, likely because they are considered to be soft targets.</p><p>Some hotels make more attractive targets than others, for a variety of reasons. One of these is the opportunity to harm a large number of people. Hotels are gathering places, and in addition to guests there are visitors for banquets, as well as bar, restaurant, and leisure facility customers.</p><p>Another reason a hotel might be an attractive target is that it is likely to garner international media attention. The more victims there are from different countries, the more media attention the attack is likely to generate. </p><p>Attacks on hotels also express an ideology: international luxury hotels symbolize Western culture. Jihadists often consider hotels immoral places where men and women interact, and where alcohol is easily accessible.​</p><h4>Attack Strategies</h4><p>Terrorists used three attack strategies when targeting hotels between 2002 and 2015: explosives (44.4 percent), firearms (25 percent), and a combination of the two (30.6 percent), according to the Global Terrorism Database.</p><p><strong>Explosives.</strong> There are two varieties of attacks on hotels using explosives: the human bomb and the vehicular bomb. These tend to cause the most physical destruction and injure the most people, making them effective for terrorists.</p><p>Human bombs tend to have geographically restricted limits and are mainly used in spaces that are open to guests. For instance, in November 2005 in Amman, Jordan, terrorists detonated explosive belts in the ballroom of the Radisson SAS, near the coffee shop of the Grand Hyatt Hotel, and in the entrance of a Days Inn. Fifty-seven people were killed in the attacks, and more than 100 people were wounded, according to The New York Times.</p><p>In contrast, vehicular bombs account for 31 percent of terrorist attacks on hotels. This technique is used to cause large-scale material destruction and potential chain reactions from the explosion—such as gas line bursts, fire, structural collapse, and destruction of guest and staff lists.</p><p>In 2008, for example, terrorists packed a truck with a ton of explosives and drove it into the Islamabad Marriott’s security gate. The vehicle exploded, killing 53 people and injuring 271, and officials were concerned that the building itself might collapse and cause even more injuries and damage, The Telegraph reported.</p><p>Occasionally, the two techniques are used together. One such case was in 2005 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, when terrorists set off a truck bomb near the Iberotel Palace hotel while simultaneously discharging a bomb in the façade of the Ghazala Gardens Hotel. They also detonated a third bomb in a parking lot of one of the city’s tourist areas. The coordinated attacks killed 88 people, most of whom were Egyptian instead of the targeted Western tourists, according to the Times’ analysis of the attack.</p><p><strong>Assaults. </strong>Terrorists often use the assault technique, armed with automatic rifles and hand grenades, to target hotels. This method makes it easier for the terrorists to damage a wider area while also killing a large number of people as they move through the hotel and its floors.</p><p>This kind of attack occurred in November 2015 when heavily armed and well-trained gunmen drove into the Bamako, Mali, Radisson Blu hotel compound. They detonated grenades and opened fire on security guards before taking 170 people hostage, according to The Guardian. Twenty-one people, including two militants, were killed in the attack and seven were wounded.</p><p>Terrorists will also move from one hotel to another, not hesitating to take clients hostage to make the operation last longer. The duration of the siege often has a direct impact on the amount of international media coverage the attack receives.</p><p>Additionally, some assault-style attacks show that terrorists had knowledge of the hotels before attacking them. For example, in the 2009 attacks on the Ritz-Carlton and the JW Marriott in Jakarta, the attackers blew themselves up—one in a parking garage at the Marriott and the other at a restaurant at the Ritz-Carlton. Authorities later discovered, according to the BBC, an unexploded bomb and materials in a Marriott guest room that was dubbed the “control center” for the attacks.</p><p>Terrorists also may plan to conduct attacks during a hotel’s peak operation times—such as during meals or organized events. For example, the attack in Bamako took place around 7:00 a.m. when breakfast, checkouts, and security officer shift changes were taking place.​</p><h4>Travel Policies</h4><p>Not all companies have well-developed travel security policies. Predictably, companies with employees who travel more frequently for work have a more advanced travel security program, as do companies that operate in countries with elevated security risks or in remote areas.</p><p>Companies also tend to have a more highly developed travel security program if one of their employees has been affected by a security incident, such as a hotel bombing, in the past. In this current threat environment, however, all international companies should review their travel risk policies because they have a duty to protect employees when they travel for work.</p><p>The European Directive on the Safety and Health of Workers at Work mentions this obligation, as do national regulations: Germany’s Civil Code, France’s Labor Code and a judgment by the Court of Cassation, and the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007.</p><p>The United States also addresses this responsibility through its statutory duty of care obligations detailed in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The act requires large and medium-sized companies to define basic emergency planning requirements.</p><p>Also, depending on the U.S. state, workers’ compensation laws may have provisions for American business travelers abroad. Similar obligations apply in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain. And case law has reinforced this legal arsenal addressing the security of employees traveling abroad.</p><p>Under these frameworks, employers must assess foreseeable risks, inform employees of these risks, and train them to respond.</p><p>And these risks are no longer reserved for employees traveling to Africa or the Middle East; the succession of terrorist attacks in countries qualified as low-risk destinations—Berlin, Brussels, Nice, and Paris—means that many companies need to address these locations in their crisis management preparation for employees traveling abroad.</p><p>Some companies have already changed their internal procedures to address these risks, including changing the way that hotels are chosen for business travel. ​</p><h4>Choosing Hotels</h4><p>Given the current threat environment and duty of care obligations for traveling employees, corporate security managers and travel managers need to work together to choose the right hotels. No matter the choice of accommodation, security and travel managers must conduct their own risk analysis to adopt the best strategy for choosing hotels for their employees. The analysis should include the destination, the profile of the business traveler, the duration of the employee’s stay, the company’s image, and the potentially controversial nature of the project in that destination.</p><p>Once the analysis is complete, companies have four options for choosing accommodations for traveling employees: international brand hotels, regional chain hotels, apartment or house sharing, or residences that are owned and operated by the company.</p><p>The most common option is to choose hotels with an international brand whose rates have been negotiated by the company. These big-name hotels can be reassuring. However, these institutions—described by some specialists as high-profile—tend to meet terrorists’ selection criteria for targets.</p><p>These hotels are also often franchise hotels, meaning they are independent institutions, master of their own investment decisions and the management of their staff. This can make it difficult for security professionals and travel managers to get answers to important questions during the vetting process: What security procedures does the hotel have in place and what is its staff management policy? Does it subcontract its security to a guard company or have its own security team?</p><p>The second option is to choose less emblematic hotels that some would consider low-profile, such as regional chain hotels—like Azalaï, City Blue, Serena, and Tsogo Sun in Pan-Africa—or independent boutique hotels. </p><p>Hotels such as these may provide more discretion than an international brand hotel, but may come with slightly lower levels of security, which could become a problem should a crisis develop. Lesser-known hotels, for instance, may not receive as rapid a response from security forces as a luxury hotel frequented by public figures and politicians. And for travel managers, this second option could be a difficult sell to employees who might be used to staying at international brand hotels.</p><p>Another option that companies might choose is to have employees stay at a private residence through the sharing economy, such as Airbnb. Google and Morgan Stanley recently began allowing employees to use Airbnb for business travel, and the company saw 14,000 new companies sign up each week in 2016 for its business travel services, according to CNBC. </p><p>For some destinations, this is not a viable option because of the lack of accommodations, but for other locations Airbnb has numerous places to stay and even offers a dedicated website for business travelers, which make up 30 percent of its overall sales.</p><p>One location where Airbnb is a pop­ular choice is in sub-Saharan Africa where a major influx of young expatriates used to traveling and staying in Airbnbs have rooms, apartments, and houses available for business travelers.</p><p>However, this option has collateral risks, and many companies forbid employees from staying at an Airbnb while traveling because of the lack of verification and vetting of the residences, which may not allow them to meet many companies’ duty of care obligations. </p><p>Also problematic is the risk that employees will get lost while trying to locate their Airbnb, as opposed to an easily identifiable hotel. And the traveler might be unable to check in when the host is unavailable to let them in or provide a key. </p><p>The Airbnb option also raises questions for security professionals: If it’s attacked, how will local law enforcement respond? Who is responsible for contacting law enforcement?</p><p>The final option is for the company itself to provide private accommodations for its travelers. This is only cost effective, though, for high-risk destinations where companies frequently send employees to work. With this option, companies have full control over the security of the accommodations. However, this level of security comes with a high operational cost—purchasing or renting the accommodation, ensuring the maintenance of the location, and supervising essential service providers, such as housekeeping and security.</p><p>Additionally, companies that choose to provide a private accommodation for traveling employees would have the responsibility to secure the property—creating a security plan; purchasing, installing, and implementing security equipment, such as access control, CCTV, and fences; and providing security staff, either in-house or through a contract.​</p><h4>Improving Security</h4><p>In 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 30 people at a Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel, in the deadliest attack during the Second Intifada. Following the attack, Israel’s hotel industry led the charge to address security threats by tightening security regulations. These regulations required the hospitality industry to staff a chief security officer in each hotel, led to the development of dedicated educational programs on security with recognized diplomas, and ultimately provided career opportunities for skilled and motivated security professionals.    </p><p>This model is one where companies can support hoteliers by including security as a key element when choosing which hotels can be used by employees on business trips.  </p><p><em><strong>Alexandre Masraff </strong>is a security and crisis management senior advisor at Onyx International Consulting & Services Ltd. and the cofounder of the InSCeHo certification program that focuses on hotel security. He is a member of ASIS International. <strong>Aude Drevon</strong> is a security analyst with a master’s degree in geopolitics and international security. <strong>Emma Villard</strong> is a regional security advisor based in Vienna, Austria, and a member of ASIS.     ​</em></p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465