For more than a decade, most corporate employee driving programs have operated under a quiet assumption: that the nature of driving for work is relatively stable. Roles are well-defined. Territories are fixed. Costs average out over time. A flat reimbursement rate or standardized fleet policy is “good enough.”
That assumption no longer holds.
The way employees work and drive has fundamentally changed. Yet, many organizations are still relying on employee driving programs designed for a 2010 workforce. As companies enter 2026, that gap is no longer a minor inefficiency. It is a growing source of financial risk, employee dissatisfaction, and governance exposure.
The biggest risk today isn’t changing your employee driving program. It’s keeping one that no longer reflects how work actually gets done.
Driving Is No Longer a Fixed Function of the Job
Hybrid work, flexible schedules, and evolving job scopes have redefined what it means to be a “driving employee.” Sales territories shift more frequently. Field teams cover larger or more irregular geographies. Employees move between roles and regions faster than ever.
These changes mirror broader workforce trends. According to Gartner’s 2026 Top Priorities for CHROs, organizations are being forced to redesign operating models to reflect fluid work patterns and blended human–technology environments, rather than static job definitions. The implication is clear: systems built around rigid assumptions about how work is performed are increasingly misaligned with reality.
Employee driving programs are no exception. Whether an organization relies on a passenger fleet or reimbursement models that assume predictable mileage, uniform driving conditions, or consistent schedules, those programs often fail to reflect the realities of today’s mobile workforce. The result is growing tension between policy and practice.
Flat Rates in a Regional Cost Environment Create Inequity
One of the most persistent disconnects in employee driving programs is the reliance on flat or uniform reimbursement rates. Fuel prices, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, and depreciation vary significantly by region, yet many organizations continue to reimburse employees as though driving costs are the same everywhere.
They are not.
Employees in high-cost regions often subsidize their employer through under-reimbursement, while those in lower-cost regions may be over-reimbursed. Both scenarios introduce problems. Under-reimbursement erodes trust and retention. Over-reimbursement creates compliance and financial risk.
Mercer’s Global Talent Trends report highlights that perceived fairness is now a central driver of employee satisfaction and retention, particularly in distributed and hybrid workforces. Compensation structures that fail to account for regional and role-based realities are increasingly viewed as outdated and inequitable.
In the context of driving for work, fairness is not abstract. It shows up in monthly reimbursements that do or do not cover actual costs. And, employees notice.
Manual Mileage Tracking Is a Hidden Productivity Tax
Despite advances in workforce technology, many employee driving programs still rely on manual mileage logs, spreadsheets, or self-reported estimates. These processes consume employee time, introduce errors, and create administrative friction for both drivers and program managers.
This is not merely an inconvenience. It is a productivity issue.
Gartner’s research emphasizes that organizations upgrading their operating models must eliminate low-value administrative work to unlock productivity gains from both people and technology. Manual mileage tracking is precisely the kind of task that no longer makes sense in a digital-first environment.
When employees spend time reconstructing trips or disputing reimbursements, that time is diverted from revenue-generating or mission-critical work. When administrators chase down incomplete logs or audit inconsistencies, operational efficiency suffers.
In 2026, manual processes are not just inefficient; they are misaligned with how today’s organizations expect work to flow.
Under- and Over-Reimbursement Both Increase Risk
Vehicle reimbursement is often framed as a cost issue, but its risk implications are frequently underestimated.
Under-reimbursement can push employees to cut corners, e.g. delaying maintenance, reducing insurance coverage, or absorbing costs they should not have to bear. Over time, this can affect safety, compliance, and morale.
Over-reimbursement introduces a different set of risks. Inconsistent or insufficient substantiation can trigger audit exposure, tax compliance issues, and governance concerns. The IRS has clear expectations around mileage substantiation and tax-free reimbursement thresholds, yet many programs struggle to maintain defensible documentation at scale.
In both cases, the root problem is the same: programs that are not calibrated to actual driving behavior. As work patterns become more dynamic, the margin for error narrows.
The Workforce Has Changed Expectations — Permanently
Today’s employees expect systems that adapt to them, not the other way around. This expectation extends beyond compensation and benefits into the operational tools that shape their day-to-day work, including how they drive for work.
Traditional employee driving programs, whether built around passenger fleets or rigid reimbursement models, were designed for a workforce with predictable schedules, centralized offices, and clearly defined driving patterns. Company cars, in particular, often assume uniform use cases and fixed lifestyles, offering limited flexibility for employees whose roles, territories, and personal needs vary widely. As work has become more distributed and dynamic, those assumptions no longer hold.
Mercer’s research underscores that employees increasingly evaluate employers based on whether policies feel responsive, transparent, and designed around real-world needs, not convenience stemming from tradition or “the way that it’s been done”. Employee driving programs that feel opaque or outdated undermine that perception, even if reimbursement levels or benefits like a company car appear competitive on paper.
Trust is built when employees understand how their driving program is structured, believe it reflects their actual costs, and experience minimal friction in the process. When programs fail to account for today’s lifestyles, whether through one-size-fits-all company cars or outdated reimbursement assumptions, the gap between policy and reality widens. And, when that gap grows, dissatisfaction follows, even if the program has technically “worked” for years.
What Must Evolve in 2026
The question facing organizations is no longer whether employee driving programs need to change but how quickly they can evolve without disrupting the workforce. Future-ready programs share several defining characteristics:
- Cost Accuracy Over Averages
Programs must reflect real-world driving costs by role and region, rather than relying on national averages that mask meaningful variation.
- Employee-Centric Design
Programs should align with how people actually drive and live, which can also reduce administrative friction while increasing clarity, fairness, and confidence in the program.
- Built-In Governance
Accurate mileage capture, compliant substantiation, and defensible documentation are no longer optional; they are foundational.
- Operational Efficiency
Automation should replace manual processes wherever possible, freeing employees and administrators to focus on higher-value work.
These principles are not radical. They mirror the broader transformation happening across HR, finance, and operations as organizations upgrade their systems to match workforce reality.
The Cost of Standing Still
Change can feel risky, particularly when employee driving programs touch compensation, compliance, and employee trust. But, the greater risk lies in inertia.
Programs built for a more static, centralized workforce struggle under the weight of today’s complexity. They introduce hidden costs, strain employee relationships, and expose organizations to avoidable risk.
As we begin 2026, leaders in HR, finance, and operations face a clear choice: continue managing driving as a legacy administrative function or recognize it as a strategic component of today’s workforce.
Employee driving has changed. The organizations that acknowledge that reality and evolve accordingly will be better positioned to balance fairness, governance, and efficiency in the years ahead.
Ready to embark on such change? Reach out to a Motus expert today!
