Executive Travel Expense Review Workload Statistics 2026

Executive travel expense review workload in 2026

Travel expense review is easy to overlook because it arrives in small pieces: a missing hotel folio, an unclear meal attendee list, a card charge that has not matched, or an approver who has not responded. The volume adds up when an executive travels often and an assistant prepares or checks each report.

The strongest current evidence describes transaction volume, policy behavior, and the controls that expense systems apply. Public research does not provide a reliable universal figure for how many minutes an executive assistant spends reviewing one report. This article therefore separates reported figures from modeled estimates. The model is arithmetic, not a claim that every organization has the same workload.

The reported benchmarks

These measures do not translate directly into assistant hours. They show the conditions behind the workload. More transactions create more lines to substantiate. Policy exceptions create questions and returns. International travel adds currencies, tax documents, and itinerary changes. Review remains judgment work even when software captures receipts.

Expense volume is rising

SAP Concur analyzed aggregate transactions processed in Concur Expense during 2023 and 2024. It reported that the number of expense transactions grew 13% in 2024 and that the average transaction was $102. Domestic air volume grew 3%, while international air volume grew almost 6%.

The data covers transactions rather than expense reports, so it cannot tell us the average number of reports per executive. It does show that review demand can rise even if headcount stays flat. A team that reviewed 10,000 transactions in 2023 would review 11,300 at the same growth rate in 2024. That extra 1,300-line workload exists before any increase in exception rates.

GBTA forecast global business travel spending of $1.57 trillion in 2025, up 6.6% from 2024. Spending is not a workload count, but it confirms that travel programs are operating at a scale where manual review choices have material consequences.

Policy exceptions are common, but 48% is not an exception rate

SAP Concur's eighth annual Global Business Travel Survey found that 48% of travelers had bent or broken travel or expense policy. Wakefield Research conducted the April 2026 study with 3,300 business travelers, 800 travel managers, and 700 CFOs.

That 48% figure describes people who reported at least one instance. It does not mean that 48% of all transactions or reports are out of policy. Using it as a line-level exception rate would greatly overstate routine review volume.

The finding still matters for workflow design. A reviewer must distinguish an accidental coding error from an allowed exception and a prohibited charge. Expense platforms reflect that distinction. Emburse's policy documentation separates warnings, which permit submission with an explanation, from violations, which block submission until corrected. The review queue therefore includes both straightforward corrections and judgment calls.

Common review triggers include:

• a missing itemized receipt or hotel folio;
• a transaction above a meal, lodging, or ground transport limit;
• an unclear business purpose or missing attendee list;
• a duplicate or unmatched corporate card charge;
• a personal charge that needs repayment or exclusion;
• an itinerary change that creates a fare or hotel exception;
• a foreign currency conversion or tax documentation question.

These categories are based on the controls documented by SAP Concur and Emburse. No public dataset establishes a universal frequency for each category.

What approval-cycle evidence can and cannot tell us

There is no current, independent benchmark that makes one approval time appropriate for every company. Policies vary by travel frequency, reimbursement method, number of approvers, audit controls, and whether an assistant acts as a delegate.

The IRS accountable-plan guidance provides an outside boundary for substantiation in the United States. The fixed-date safe harbor treats accounting for expenses within 60 days as reasonable. It also treats the return of an excess advance within 120 days as reasonable. These are tax rules, not operating targets. A company can comply with the safe harbor and still make employees wait too long for reimbursement.

For workflow management, measure at least four separate intervals:

Combining these intervals into one number hides the source of delay. A three-day approval cycle can contain ten minutes of actual review and almost three days in a queue.

Modeled review time for an executive expense report

The following model estimates hands-on assistant time. It uses explicit assumptions because no authoritative survey publishes a standard review duration.

Model assumptions

• One report contains 25 transactions.
• A clean transaction takes 20 to 35 seconds to check for receipt, category, business purpose, and card match.
• An exception takes 2 to 4 minutes to investigate, document, correct, or return.
• Report-level reconciliation and routing take 5 to 8 minutes.
• Exception scenarios cover 10%, 20%, and 30% of transaction lines. These are sensitivity cases, not reported market rates.

The fractional exception counts are averages across many reports. For planning, the central range is about 18 to 43 minutes per 25-line report. A report with a complex international trip can exceed the high case, while a fully matched corporate card report may fall below the low case.

Annual assistant workload model

The annual model multiplies reports by hands-on review time. It excludes trip booking, calendar changes, traveler support, and time spent waiting for answers.

An assistant supporting three executives who each submit two reports per month would spend about 22 to 52 hours per year on hands-on review under this model. Follow-up can push the total higher because a returned report creates another touch.

For cost planning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 2025 median annual wage of $76,590 for executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants. That equals about $36.82 per hour using 2,080 paid hours, before benefits and overhead. The modeled 22 to 52 hours would therefore represent about $800 to $1,900 in direct wage time across three executives. This is an estimate, not a BLS cost benchmark.

Why the work belongs in an executive productivity plan

The BLS defines executive assistants as workers who provide high-level support, handle information requests, conduct research, prepare reports, and make decisions on an executive's behalf. Its 2025 survey found that 95.9% of these roles require more than basic people skills and 87.2% require prior experience.

Expense review draws on that judgment. The assistant often knows why a trip changed, which client attended a meal, whether an upgraded fare had approval, and who should resolve a disputed charge. The task is administrative, but the useful part is contextual decision support rather than data entry.

This distinction helps companies decide what to automate. Receipt capture, card matching, duplicate detection, and policy thresholds are good automation targets. Business purpose, unusual exceptions, and executive follow-up still need an accountable owner.

Organizations that need ongoing coverage can compare dedicated staff with virtual assistant services and broader outsourced support through Stealth Agents services. Related research on adjacent workload includes executive document approval cycle statistics and executive assistant salary by state.

How to reduce review workload without weakening control

Start with the transaction feed. Corporate card integration and mobile receipt capture reduce the number of items an assistant must reconstruct after a trip. SAP Concur cites an IDC analysis in which users completed expense reports 43% faster after adopting Concur Expense. That is a vendor-cited customer study, so it should be treated as product evidence rather than a universal benchmark.

Next, separate clean lines from exceptions. Auto-approval should apply only where the amount, merchant, receipt, category, and policy conditions are unambiguous. A reviewer should see the remaining exceptions with the relevant policy and traveler response attached.

Finally, track returns. Report count alone does not reveal rework. Useful measures include exception lines per report, reports returned for correction, touches per report, median assistant review time, approval queue time, and days to reimbursement.

Frequently asked questions

How long should an executive expense report take to review?

No authoritative source sets a universal duration. The transparent model in this article produces a range of about 18 to 43 minutes for a 25-line report, depending on the number of exceptions and the time needed to resolve each one. Organizations should replace these assumptions with their own system data.

What percentage of expense reports violate policy?

Current public evidence does not establish one market-wide report violation rate. SAP Concur found that 48% of surveyed travelers had bent or broken policy, but that is a traveler-level measure, not the percentage of reports or transactions with exceptions.

Is 60 days a reasonable expense submission deadline?

The IRS treats substantiation within 60 days as a reasonable period under the accountable-plan safe harbor. That makes 60 days a tax boundary, not a recommended service level. Faster submission reduces missing documentation and shortens reimbursement time.

What should an executive assistant check before approval?

The core checks are receipt support, correct amount and currency, business purpose, category, policy compliance, duplicate risk, corporate card matching, and the required approver. International travel may also require tax documents and currency review.

Sources and methodology

Sources were verified on October 6, 2026. Primary figures come from SAP Concur aggregate transaction data, the SAP Concur 2026 Global Business Travel Survey, the GBTA 2025 forecast, BLS occupational data, IRS Publication 463, and Emburse policy-control documentation. The article also uses SAP Concur's productivity summary, GAO payment-card control guidance, and the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.

All review-time and annual workload figures are modeled estimates. Their assumptions appear beside the tables so readers can substitute their own transaction counts, exception rates, review speed, and reporting cadence.

Related reading

• Executive document approval cycle statistics
• Executive assistant salary by state
• Virtual assistant ROI statistics
• Virtual assistant services
• All services