ASF Tourism — Version 3 (Final), September 2026
The ASF Tourism Accommodation Safety Standard
80 criteria across 11 sections, plus a 6-item compulsory gateway (licensing, fire certificate, first aid, and the two leading causes of food poisoning). Deliberately lean — not a copy of ASF’s much larger healthcare standards, but a focused check on the things that actually keep guests safe.
Every criterion below exists because of a real, measurable gap — not because more paperwork sounds thorough. 92% of travellers call cleanliness the single most important factor in choosing where to stay, 600 million people fall ill every year from contaminated food, and 79–84% already choose a certified property over an uncertified one even when it costs more. The sections below are what a facility actually has to get right to close that gap — and to be able to prove it, not just claim it. The full research behind these numbers is on the Why ASF Tourism page.
Design Update
Two tracks, not one size fits all
A single 80-criteria standard with full documentation requirements on nearly every item is reasonable for a 100-room hotel with a dedicated management team. It’s a genuinely unreasonable amount of paperwork for a 6-room family-run guesthouse. Rather than force one standard to fit both, the standard now has two tracks:
Essentials — small & boutique properties
28 criteria (6-item gateway plus 22 of the 80 scored criteria — one or two per category, no more). Keeps only the single most critical item or two per category — including the full food-poisoning gateway, bed bug prevention and response, ventilation, basic accessibility, and medical emergency response. Drops the formal documentation-system items — logged schedules, written management reviews, formal incident-tracking systems — that make sense at scale but not for a handful of staff. Recommended for properties under ~20 rooms, or any owner-operated property that wants the lighter path.
Full Standard — larger properties
All 80 criteria (plus the 6-item gateway), as below. The full documentation and management-system expectations that make sense for a property with shift staff, a dedicated housekeeping team, and enough scale to run formal logs and reviews.
Items below marked ESSENTIALS are required on both tracks. Unmarked items apply to the Full Standard track only.
A Core Principle
ASF accepts a real means of verification wherever one exists
Every criterion needs a means of verification — real evidence, not a bare tick. A government certificate is one kind (a fire safety certificate, a water test from a certified lab, a Green Globe or GSTC sustainability certificate), and where one already exists, ASF accepts it directly as sufficient evidence. Submit it, and it’s accepted — not re-inspected, re-questioned, or second-guessed. A photo of the real condition is another valid means of verification where no formal certificate applies. The detailed, criterion-by-criterion list of what counts as an acceptable means of verification for each item is still being built — this page states the principle now.
In practice, item by item: take fire safety. If a facility holds a valid government fire certificate, that’s its means of verification — uploaded, and that criterion is done. If it doesn’t, the facility goes through ASF’s own fire safety checklist directly, and the evidence gathered there becomes the means of verification instead. The same logic applies to every item in every section below, including any broader coverage ASF builds out in future — sustainability included.
This matters for a simple reason: ASF’s role is to fill the gap where no credible national verification exists — not to duplicate, or appear to doubt, the work of an authority that has already done its job properly. Re-auditing a means of verification someone else already produced properly would be presumptuous, not rigorous.
See the Recognized National Standards page for which specific government certificates are already accepted, country by country. Where no such certification system exists in a country, or a facility simply doesn’t hold one yet, ASF verifies the underlying practice directly instead — that’s exactly what fills the real gap, rather than leaving it unchecked. This is the same logic Ecotourism Kenya‘s own scheme applies to existing regulatory documentation, and it’s applied consistently throughout the sections below.
This is Version 3 (2026) — drafted first in 2021, piloted that same year, updated into Version 2 in 2023, and revised again here. The real evidence behind each item — statistics, citations, documented incidents — is kept separate: see the Evidence Base, and which items need real staff training (not just a document) is covered on Training Requirements. Built while ASF looks for the right local partner in each country under consideration — not a finished publication. It deliberately does not attempt to match the scale of ASF’s healthcare standards (which run to 60–120+ criteria per facility type) — this programme verifies safety, not full quality management, and is sized accordingly.
Section 0 is a gateway, not a scored section: a facility must already hold valid local licensing before anything else is assessed. ASF verification adds to local law — it never substitutes for it.
Benchmarked against what already exists
The world’s leading sustainability standard for hotels, 40 criteria, explicitly states that health, safety, and security “fall under the responsibility of specialized authorities and are outside the scope of this standard set.” GSTC itself says this isn’t their job. That’s the gap this standard fills.
Kenya’s own GSTC-recognised environmental certification (Bronze/Silver/Gold, since 2002). Different focus — environmental, not safety — so no overlap. But published research on its uptake found growth was limited by “cost of certification, long and tedious application process.” A direct warning this standard is built to avoid.
The mandatory government star-rating and bronze/silver/gold system. Measures quality and comfort. This standard does not touch that scope at all — Section 0 simply requires a facility already hold valid TRA licensing before ASF verification begins.
The globally recognised name in this space — worth building on, not ignoring. But it is self-assessed: a member fills in a form. This standard uses the same plain, recognisable idea of a “safety stamp” the public already understands, with one real difference: an independent person actually checks.
On 9001: the criteria structure here — especially Standard 9 (Management & Continuity) — is deliberately compatible with 9001’s management-system logic, the same way ASF’s healthcare standards connect to 9001 Ready. A facility that completes ASF Tourism verification will already have most of the documentation 9001 certification expects. That crosswalk can be built out properly once the core standard is settled.
Section 0 — Legal Gateway (not scored — required to proceed)
- Valid tourism/hospitality business licence from the relevant national authority ESSENTIALS
- Valid local health/sanitation permit where one is required by national or county law ESSENTIALS
- Fire safety certificate or equivalent from the relevant local authority, where required ESSENTIALS
- A stocked, accessible first-aid kit, and at least one staff member on every shift with current first-aid training. Compulsory, not scored — a facility cannot proceed without this, full stop. ESSENTIALS
- Cold chain integrity: refrigeration verified cold enough to prevent bacterial growth. Compulsory, not scored. Food poisoning is the single highest-stakes, highest-reputational-cost risk this standard addresses, and a broken cold chain is one of its two most common root causes. ESSENTIALS
- Raw and cooked food physically separated in storage and preparation. Compulsory, not scored. The second most common root cause of real-world food poisoning outbreaks — cross-contamination, not an edge case. ESSENTIALS
Standard 1 of 11
Water Safety
Intent: Guests and staff have continuous access to water that is safe to drink, cook with, and bathe in, and the facility can demonstrate this with real evidence, not assumption.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 1.4 and 1.8 only. |
| Full Standard | 9 scored criteria (1.5 is a cross-reference, not scored). |
Criterion 1.1
Statement: The source of the facility’s drinking water is identified and documented — municipal supply, borehole, treated surface water, or bottled.
Why: Grounded in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality — knowing the source is the starting point for managing every other water risk below it. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: A staff member who can state the source without hesitation; a municipal supply contract, borehole permit, or bottled-water delivery record.
MET
Facility names its source immediately and a document confirms it.
NOT MET
“It just comes from the tap” with no further detail available.
Criterion 1.2
Statement: Water intended for drinking is tested or treated, with records kept of the most recent result.
Why: WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. A source being identified (1.1) doesn’t confirm it’s currently safe — this criterion checks the actual, recent result. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: A dated test result or treatment log from the last 12 months, or a means of verification from the water provider itself.
Satisfying training: TGM-WATER-01: Water Source Testing & Documentation
MET
A water test from within the last year, or an active treatment system with a maintenance log.
NOT MET
No test on record, or the only one is several years old with no renewal.
Criterion 1.3
Statement: Water storage tanks are covered, cleaned on a documented schedule, and protected from contamination.
Why: An otherwise-safe source can be recontaminated in storage — a clean source and a dirty tank produce the same outcome as no treatment at all. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Physical inspection of tank covers and condition; a cleaning schedule with dates and who performed it.
MET
Sealed tank, visible cleaning log, no signs of algae or debris at inspection.
NOT MET
Open or cracked tank lid, no record of it ever being cleaned.
Criterion 1.4 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Guests have access to safe drinking water at all times, and if tap water is not potable, this is clearly indicated to them.
Why: The guest-facing outcome of 1.1–1.3 — the point where water safety actually reaches the guest. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Observation of guest-accessible water points; guest-facing signage or in-room information where tap water isn’t potable.
MET
Filtered station in the lobby, bottled water in every room, a card stating tap water isn’t for drinking.
NOT MET
No water provided and no indication tap water isn’t safe.
Partial compliance: water is available but nothing tells the guest whether tap water is safe — scored Not Met, since that omission is itself the hazard.
Criterion 1.5 — not scored here
Pool water testing is covered under Facility Standards — Swimming Pool module (Pool.1), not duplicated here. This item only applies if the property actually has a pool, so it lives in the conditional layer, not the universal core.
Criterion 1.6
Statement: Any history of water-related guest illness in the past 12 months has been investigated and addressed.
Why: A real incident is the strongest possible signal something in 1.1–1.5 failed — this checks the facility actually learned from it, not just moved on. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Incident log entry if applicable, with a documented cause and corrective action — or confirmation no such incident occurred.
MET
An incident happened, was logged, investigated, and a specific fix followed.
NOT MET
Staff mention guest complaints about stomach illness but nothing was ever looked into.
A documented, properly investigated incident is not scored against the facility — an ignored one is what this criterion actually checks for.
Criterion 1.7
Statement: Staff responsible for water systems have basic training in safe handling.
Why: Every criterion above depends on someone actually doing it correctly and consistently — this is the staff-competence check behind the paperwork. Training Requirements →
Evidence sought: Training record, certificate, or the responsible person demonstrating basic knowledge directly (e.g., what a safe chlorine range looks like).
Satisfying training: TGM-WATER-01: Water Source Testing & Documentation
MET
Named person with training evidence, able to explain the basics confidently.
NOT MET
Nobody is designated; whoever is free handles it that day.
Criterion 1.8 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Hot water and plumbing systems are maintained to prevent Legionella growth — adequate temperature, no prolonged stagnation in low-use rooms or dead-leg pipework.
Why: Companion to 1.9 (scalding), not a contradiction — the tank runs hot enough to control Legionella, a mixing valve brings it down before the tap. A Legionnaires’ outbreak traced to the Sheraton Atlanta’s water system sickened dozens of conference guests and killed one, confirmed by Georgia’s Department of Public Health — the hotel closed for weeks. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Tank temperature setting; a technician’s maintenance record; a flushing practice for rarely-used rooms.
Satisfying training: TGM-WATER-03: Legionella Prevention & Hot Water Systems
MET
Documented Legionella-safe tank temperature, serviced within 12 months, low-use rooms flushed before occupancy.
NOT MET
Nobody can state the tank temperature or last service date.
Criterion 1.9
Statement: Hot water at guest taps and showers does not exceed 49°C/120°F.
Why: A documented, recent cause of hotel guest death from scalding. The fix is a low-cost thermostatic mixing valve — this is not a theoretical risk. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: A thermometer reading at the tap, taken during the visit — not a claimed setting.
Satisfying training: TGM-WATER-03: Legionella Prevention & Hot Water Systems
MET
Measured tap temperature at or below 49°C across sampled rooms.
NOT MET
Measured temperature exceeds 49°C, no mixing valve present.
Criterion 1.10
Statement: Ice for consumption is produced and stored on equipment cleaned and sanitised on a documented schedule.
Why: Industry sources identify poorly maintained ice machines as one of the most common food-safety violations in hospitality — biofilm, mould, and bacteria accumulate in ice bins specifically, and contaminated ice is treated as contaminated food by health inspectors. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: A dated sanitisation log for the ice machine specifically, separate from general kitchen cleaning records.
Satisfying training: TGM-FOOD-02: Ice & Beverage Equipment Hygiene
MET
A sanitisation log shows the ice machine professionally cleaned monthly, interior visibly clean.
NOT MET
No log exists for the ice machine; interior shows visible scale or mould.
Standard 2 of 11
Food & Dining Hygiene
Intent: Food served to guests is prepared, stored, and served in a way that does not make them sick — the single highest-stakes, highest-reputational-cost risk this whole standard addresses. The two leading real-world causes (cold chain, raw/cooked separation) are compulsory Gateway items, not optional here.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 2.2 and 2.3 only. |
| Full Standard | All 7 criteria. |
Criterion 2.1
Statement: Kitchen staff have basic food safety training, documented.
Why: Grounded in the Codex Alimentarius (joint FAO/WHO food safety reference). The compulsory Gateway items (cold chain, raw/cooked separation) only work if someone actually knows how to maintain them. Training Requirements →
Evidence sought: A training record, certificate, or direct demonstration of basic food-safety knowledge by kitchen staff present during the visit.
Satisfying training: TGM-FOOD-01: Food Safety & Hygiene Fundamentals
MET
Each kitchen staff member has a training record, and can explain basic safe-temperature practice unprompted.
NOT MET
Staff learned entirely on the job with no formal training at any point.
Criterion 2.2 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Food storage areas are clean, pest-free, and properly sealed.
Why: Codex Alimentarius. Connects directly to Standard 3 (Pest & Vermin) — a storage area that attracts pests undermines every other food-safety measure in this Standard. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Physical inspection of storage areas — sealed containers, no visible pest activity, clean surfaces.
Satisfying training: TGM-FOOD-01: Food Safety & Hygiene Fundamentals
MET
Sealed containers, clean shelving, no droppings or insect activity at inspection.
NOT MET
Open sacks of dry goods, visible pest droppings, or unsealed gaps into the storage room.
Criterion 2.3 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Staff follow basic hand hygiene practices during food handling.
Why: Codex Alimentarius. One of the single most effective, lowest-cost interventions against foodborne illness transmission that exists. Evidence Base →
Evidence sought: Direct observation during the visit; handwashing facilities actually present and accessible at the food-prep station, not just in a distant staff bathroom.
Satisfying training: TGM-FOOD-01: Food Safety & Hygiene Fundamentals
MET
A sink with soap is within reach of the prep station, and staff are observed using it between tasks.
NOT MET
No accessible handwashing point in the kitchen itself.
Criterion 2.4
Statement: Water used in food preparation meets the same safety standard as drinking water (Standard 1).
Why: Water that’s safe to drink but used unsafely in food prep — or treated as a separate, lower-priority supply — creates exactly the same risk through a different route. Explicit cross-reference, not a new standard. Evidence sought: Confirm the kitchen draws from the same tested/treated source verified under Standard 1, not an untested secondary tap.
MET
Kitchen water comes from the same verified source as guest drinking water.
NOT MET
Kitchen uses an untested well or tap different from the verified guest supply.
Criterion 2.5
Statement: A documented process exists for handling guest food allergies or dietary restrictions.
Why: A severe allergic reaction is a real medical emergency, not a service preference — this connects directly to Standard 5 (Medical Emergency Response) if something goes wrong despite the process. Evidence sought: A written process guests or staff can point to — how an allergy is flagged, communicated to the kitchen, and verified before the dish goes out.
Satisfying training: TGM-FOOD-03: Allergen Management & Guest Communication
MET
A simple written process exists; staff can describe exactly what they’d do if a guest declares a nut allergy.
NOT MET
“We just ask the chef” with no consistent process behind it.
Criterion 2.6
Statement: Waste food and kitchen waste are disposed of in a way that does not attract pests.
Why: Directly connects to Standard 3 (Pest & Vermin) — open kitchen waste is one of the most common pest-attraction mechanisms in any food operation. Evidence sought: Covered waste bins, a removal schedule, and storage away from food-prep and guest areas.
MET
Covered bins, regular removal, waste storage away from the kitchen itself.
NOT MET
Open bins sitting near the kitchen door with no fixed removal schedule.
Criterion 2.7
Statement: Any food-related guest illness in the past 12 months has been investigated and addressed.
Why: Same logic as Standard 1’s water-illness criterion — a real incident is the strongest signal something upstream failed, and this checks it was actually learned from. Evidence sought: Incident log with cause and corrective action, or confirmation no such incident occurred.
MET
An incident was logged, the cause identified, and a specific fix followed.
NOT MET
Guest complaints are remembered informally but never formally reviewed.
A documented, properly handled incident is not scored against the facility — an ignored one is what this criterion checks for.
Standard 3 of 11
Pest & Vermin Control
Intent: No single global pest-control treaty exists, so this Standard sets an independent minimum ASF verifies directly. Covers general pest control, sewage and building entry points, bed bugs, and dangerous wildlife — four distinct real-world mechanisms, not variants of one problem.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 3.3 and 3.11 only. |
| Full Standard | All 11 criteria. |
3a. General Pest Control
Criterion 3.1
Statement: A documented pest control protocol exists, not just an ad-hoc response to sightings.
Why: A reactive-only approach means pests are already established by the time anyone acts — a protocol is what prevents, not just responds. Evidence sought: A written protocol naming inspection frequency and responsible parties, not a verbal description.
Satisfying training: TGM-PEST-01: Pest Prevention & Response Fundamentals
MET
A written, dated protocol with named inspection intervals.
NOT MET
“We call someone if we see something” with nothing written down.
Criterion 3.2
Statement: Evidence of recent treatment is available (service records, dates, products used).
Why: A protocol (3.1) existing on paper doesn’t confirm it’s actually being carried out — this checks the real, recent record. Evidence sought: Dated service records from the last 6 months, naming the products used.
Satisfying training: TGM-PEST-01: Pest Prevention & Response Fundamentals
MET
A service provider’s invoice or log within the last 6 months.
NOT MET
The only record is over a year old, or none exists.
Criterion 3.3 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Food storage and guest rooms show no active signs of infestation at time of assessment.
Why: The real-world outcome 3.1 and 3.2 exist to produce — paperwork means nothing if the actual rooms tell a different story. Evidence sought: Direct physical inspection of a sample of guest rooms and food storage at the time of the visit.
Satisfying training: TGM-PEST-01: Pest Prevention & Response Fundamentals
MET
No droppings, nests, or live activity in sampled rooms and storage.
NOT MET
Visible activity found in any sampled room or storage area.
Criterion 3.4
Statement: Where mosquito-borne illness is a regional risk, the facility has a documented mosquito control measure (netting, repellents, standing water management).
Why: A genuinely regional risk, not universal — applied where it’s relevant, not demanded everywhere regardless of local disease ecology. Evidence sought: Screens/netting present and intact; a standing-water management routine for the grounds.
MET
Intact netting/screens and a routine for eliminating standing water.
NOT MET
In a known-risk region, with torn netting and visible standing water nearby.
Criterion 3.5
Statement: Pest control products used are appropriate for a guest-occupied environment and stored safely.
Why: The treatment itself (3.2) can become its own hazard if the wrong products are used around guests, or stored where anyone can access them. Evidence sought: Product labels/safety data visible; storage locked or otherwise inaccessible to guests and untrained staff.
Satisfying training: TGM-PEST-01: Pest Prevention & Response Fundamentals
MET
Guest-safe-rated products, stored locked away from guest and untrained-staff access.
NOT MET
Unmarked chemicals stored in an unlocked cupboard near guest areas.
3b. Sewage & Building Entry Points
Criterion 3.6
Statement: Sewage and wastewater systems are properly managed and maintained.
Why: A poorly managed sewage system is a direct entry route for pests — root cause, not a separate issue from 3.1–3.5. Evidence sought: No sewage odour or visible leakage; a maintenance record for the system.
MET
No leaks or odour detected; a maintenance record exists.
NOT MET
Visible leakage or persistent sewage odour with no record of repair.
Criterion 3.7
Statement: Windows, doors, and other building entry points close and seal properly, limiting pest entry.
Why: Prevention at the structural level — the cheapest and most durable pest-control intervention there is. Evidence sought: Physical check of a sample of windows/doors for gaps, torn screens, or non-closing seals.
MET
Sampled doors/windows close and seal fully, screens intact.
NOT MET
Visible gaps under doors or torn window screens.
3c. Bed Bugs
Criterion 3.8 — Prevention
Statement: A routine inspection protocol for guest rooms exists (mattress seams, headboards, furniture joints), not only inspection after a guest complaint, with protective mattress/box-spring encasements in use.
Why: One of the most common, reputation-destroying real-world hospitality incidents. The three-part structure here (prevent/respond/learn) is deliberate. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Encasements physically present on sampled beds; a named inspection schedule.
MET
Encasements on sampled beds; a routine inspection schedule, not just complaint-driven.
NOT MET
No encasements, inspection only happens if a guest complains.
Criterion 3.9 — Response
Statement: A documented procedure exists for when a case is reported — the room is pulled from service for professional treatment, not simply cleaned and rebooked, and adjacent rooms are checked.
Why: A room cleaned but not professionally treated and immediately rebooked is how one case becomes many. Evidence sought: A written response procedure; staff who can describe the actual steps taken, not just intentions.
MET
Room pulled from service, professionally treated, adjacent rooms checked.
NOT MET
Room cleaned by housekeeping and rebooked the same day with no professional treatment.
Criterion 3.10 — Learning
Statement: Each incident is logged with enough detail to spot a pattern (room, likely source if known, treatment outcome), feeding directly into Standard 9’s incident log.
Why: A guest can bring bed bugs in from elsewhere, and a property with a strong, documented response shouldn’t score worse than one that never reported an incident. Evidence sought: Logged incident entries, cross-referenced with the Standard 9 incident log.
MET
Incidents logged with room, likely source, and outcome — feeding the central incident log.
NOT MET
Incidents handled verbally and never written down anywhere.
A documented, properly handled incident is not scored against the facility — undocumented or ignored incidents are what this criterion actually checks for.
3d. Dangerous Wildlife
Criterion 3.11 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Dangerous wildlife intrusion is prevented (snakes and other locally relevant animals) — sealed entry points, a documented response procedure if one is found, and staff know what to do.
Why: Especially relevant to rural, safari, and ground-floor properties — a genuine, distinct safety mechanism from general pest control. Evidence sought: Sealed entry points consistent with 3.7; staff able to describe the actual response procedure, not improvise one on the spot.
Satisfying training: TGM-PEST-03: Wildlife Intrusion Response (Rural/Safari Properties)
MET
Sealed entry points, a written response procedure, staff can describe it confidently.
NOT MET
No procedure exists; staff say they’d “figure it out” if it happened.
Standard 4 of 11
Fire & Emergency Safety
Intent: Guests and staff can detect and survive a fire or similar emergency — equipment that works, exits they can actually find, and the one gas no one can smell covered by its own detector. Fire safety is regulated nationally almost everywhere; a valid local fire certificate is accepted directly as means of verification.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 4.1 and 4.7 only. |
| Full Standard | All 7 criteria. |
Criterion 4.1 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Fire extinguishers are present, in-date, and accessible in key areas.
Why: Grounded in the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, the most widely referenced hotel fire-safety standard internationally. Evidence sought: Physical inspection — extinguisher inspection tags with a current date, genuinely accessible, not blocked.
Satisfying training: TGM-FIRE-01: Basic Fire Response & Extinguisher Use
MET
Current inspection tag, unobstructed, in a visible key location.
NOT MET
Expired tag, or extinguisher blocked behind furniture.
Criterion 4.2
Statement: Emergency exits are clearly marked and kept unobstructed.
Why: Hotel guests are structurally unfamiliar with their escape routes in a way residents of a building are not; roughly 75% of fire deaths come from disorientation, not burns. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Walk the actual exit routes; confirm signage is visible and the path is clear end to end.
Satisfying training: TGM-FIRE-01: Basic Fire Response & Extinguisher Use
MET
Marked exits, clear path the full length of the route, doors that open as expected.
NOT MET
Storage blocking a fire door, or a marked exit that’s actually locked.
Criterion 4.3
Statement: Staff have received basic fire response training, documented.
Why: Equipment (4.1) and marked exits (4.2) only work if staff know how to use them and guide guests under pressure. Training Requirements → Evidence sought: Training record; a staff member able to describe the basic response sequence without prompting.
Satisfying training: TGM-FIRE-01: Basic Fire Response & Extinguisher Use
MET
Training record on file; staff describe the response sequence confidently.
NOT MET
No training record exists for any current staff member.
Criterion 4.4
Statement: A written emergency evacuation plan exists and is known to staff.
Why: Individual staff training (4.3) is only reliable at scale with a shared, written plan everyone works from — otherwise each person improvises differently. Evidence sought: The written plan itself; a staff member describing their specific role in it.
Satisfying training: TGM-FIRE-01: Basic Fire Response & Extinguisher Use
MET
A written plan exists; staff know their specific role within it.
NOT MET
No written plan; staff say they’d “just get everyone out.”
Criterion 4.5
Statement: Guests are informed of basic safety information on arrival (exits, emergency contacts).
Why: The guest-facing counterpart to 4.2 and 4.4 — the exits and the plan only help a guest who’s actually been told about them. Evidence sought: In-room safety information, verbal briefing at check-in, or both — confirmed present, not assumed.
MET
In-room card or a verbal check-in briefing covering exits and emergency contacts.
NOT MET
Nothing communicated to guests at any point.
Criterion 4.6
Statement: Electrical installations show no obvious hazards (exposed wiring, overloaded circuits).
Why: One of the most common actual ignition sources for hotel fires — a structural cause this Standard checks directly rather than assumes is covered elsewhere. Evidence sought: Visual inspection of accessible wiring and outlets in sampled areas.
MET
No exposed wiring or visibly overloaded sockets in sampled areas.
NOT MET
Exposed wiring visible, or multiple high-draw devices on one extension cord.
Criterion 4.7 ESSENTIALS
Statement: A working carbon monoxide detector is installed in every guest room and near any combustion source (gas heaters, boilers, pool heaters, generators).
Why: CO is invisible and odourless, and still kills hotel guests every year — documented 2024–2025 deaths include a 14-year-old at a Costa Rica resort and three American women in a single Belize hotel incident — with almost no country requiring this by law. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: A working detector, physically present, in every guest room and near every combustion source.
Satisfying training: TGM-FIRE-02: Carbon Monoxide Hazard Awareness
MET
A tested, working CO detector in every sampled room and near the boiler/pool heater.
NOT MET
No detector present, or present but dead/unplugged.
Standard 5 of 11
Medical Emergency Response
Intent: A hotel is not expected to be a hospital — but a guest having a medical emergency needs staff who already know exactly what happens next, not staff figuring it out in the moment. Distinct from Standard 4 (fire/evacuation): this is what happens when someone is hurt or ill and there is no fire at all.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 5.1 and 5.6 only. |
| Full Standard | All 6 criteria. |
Criterion 5.1 ESSENTIALS
Statement: On-site medical capability is honestly disclosed — health post, nurse, doctor on call, or none of these. Not required to have one; required to state the truth, clearly, to guests and to ASF.
Why: Every other criterion in this Standard depends on an honest starting point — a facility that overstates its capability is more dangerous than one that’s accurately modest about it. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: A clear, accurate statement of what’s actually on site, checked against what’s claimed in guest-facing materials.
MET
Staff state plainly “we have no medical staff on site” — and nothing claims otherwise anywhere guest-facing.
NOT MET
Marketing implies “on-site medical support” when nothing beyond a first-aid kit actually exists.
Criterion 5.2
Statement: Where on-site staff are described as medically trained, their actual qualification is documented — not assumed from a job title.
Why: Extends 5.1’s honesty principle one level deeper — “nurse” or “medic” can mean very different things depending on where and how someone trained. Evidence sought: A real credential or certificate matching the stated qualification, not a verbal claim.
MET
A staff “nurse” has a verifiable nursing credential on file.
NOT MET
Someone is called “the medic” with no documented training behind the title.
Criterion 5.3
Statement: A written medical emergency protocol exists, separate from the fire evacuation plan: who staff call first, in what order, who takes responsibility for next steps.
Why: A clear structural distinction from Standard 4 — a cardiac event or a broken limb needs an entirely different first response than a fire does, and conflating the two plans means neither works well. A written protocol that exists but isn’t followed is worthless: a San Diego jury ordered Hyatt to pay $15.5 million in July 2026 after staff failed to perform the wellness check their own written procedure required when a diabetic guest missed checkout — she was found nearly 24 hours later and died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: The written protocol itself; a staff member describing the actual call sequence.
Satisfying training: TGM-MED-01: Medical Emergency Protocol Development
MET
A distinct written protocol; staff describe the call sequence without hesitation.
NOT MET
Staff point to the fire evacuation plan as if it covers medical emergencies too.
Criterion 5.4
Statement: The nearest hospital genuinely capable of real emergency care is identified by name, with real travel time documented — not “nearby.”
Why: For remote and safari properties specifically, “nearby” can mean two hours — the gap between a vague assumption and a named, timed destination is exactly what this criterion closes. Evidence sought: A named facility with a documented, realistic travel time, not a general direction.
Satisfying training: TGM-MED-01: Medical Emergency Protocol Development
MET
A specific hospital named, with a real, tested travel time documented.
NOT MET
“There’s a hospital in town” with no name or distance ever confirmed.
Criterion 5.5
Statement: A real evacuation/transport method exists for a medical emergency — an arranged vehicle, an ambulance service with a working number, or equivalent — not assumed to exist because a road is nearby.
Why: Knowing where the hospital is (5.4) is useless without a real, working way to actually get there — the two criteria close the gap together, not separately. Evidence sought: A named vehicle, driver, or ambulance contact confirmed working, not assumed.
Satisfying training: TGM-MED-01: Medical Emergency Protocol Development
MET
A specific vehicle or driver on call, or a verified working ambulance number.
NOT MET
“We’d figure something out” with no specific, confirmed method.
Criterion 5.6 ESSENTIALS
Statement: First-aid training (required under the Gateway) specifically includes Basic Life Support (BLS) — CPR plus choking response and recovery position, not CPR alone. At least one BLS-trained person must be present on the property at all times, not just scheduled during business hours.
Why: BLS is the one skill set that actually determines survival in the first minutes of a cardiac event or choking emergency — and emergencies don’t follow a day shift. BLS requires hands-on, in-person training; it cannot be taught remotely. Training Requirements → Evidence sought: A real BLS certificate, current, for whoever is on shift at the time of the visit — not a schedule claiming coverage elsewhere.
Satisfying training: TGM-MED-02: Basic Life Support (BLS) — In-person only
MET
A current BLS certificate held by whoever is actually on shift during the visit, day or night.
NOT MET
BLS coverage exists only during daytime hours; the night shift has no trained person at all.
Standard 6 of 11
General Hygiene & Cleaning
Intent: Routine cleaning, air quality, and electrical safety in wet areas together form the facility’s basic infection-prevention and injury-prevention floor — grounded in WHO infection prevention guidance and the same “Environment of Care” logic used in real healthcare accreditation.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 6.7, 6.9, and 6.10 only. |
| Full Standard | All 10 criteria. |
Criterion 6.1
Statement: Guest rooms follow a documented cleaning protocol between stays.
Why: Grounded in WHO infection prevention and control guidance, adapted for facility-level practice. Evidence sought: A written protocol; housekeeping staff able to describe the actual steps, not a vague gesture at “cleaning.”
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-01: Housekeeping Standards & Infection Prevention
MET
A written protocol staff can describe step by step.
NOT MET
No written standard; each housekeeper does their own thing.
Criterion 6.2
Statement: Common areas (reception, dining, pool) are visibly clean at time of assessment.
Why: The real-world outcome 6.1 exists to produce, extended beyond just guest rooms — shared spaces carry their own transmission risk. Evidence sought: Direct observation of common areas during the visit.
MET
Common areas visibly clean on direct observation.
NOT MET
Visible dirt, grime, or neglect in reception, dining, or pool areas.
Criterion 6.3
Statement: Bed linen and towels are laundered to a documented standard between guests.
Why: Fabric in direct, prolonged skin contact carries real infection and allergen risk if not properly laundered — connects directly to Standard 11’s bedding criteria. Evidence sought: A documented laundering standard (temperature, detergent, frequency), not just “we wash everything.”
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-01: Housekeeping Standards & Infection Prevention
MET
A documented standard naming temperature and frequency.
NOT MET
No documented standard exists for laundering.
Criterion 6.4
Statement: Bathrooms and toilets are cleaned and maintained to a basic hygiene standard.
Why: Bathrooms carry the highest pathogen load of any guest-facing space — worth its own explicit criterion rather than folding into general room cleaning. Evidence sought: Direct inspection of sampled bathrooms.
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-01: Housekeeping Standards & Infection Prevention
MET
Sampled bathrooms visibly clean and well-maintained.
NOT MET
Visible mould, grime, or disrepair in sampled bathrooms.
Criterion 6.5
Statement: Waste disposal (general waste, not just food waste) is managed hygienically.
Why: General waste, distinct from the kitchen-specific waste covered in Standard 2 — its own pest-attraction and hygiene risk across the whole property. Evidence sought: Covered bins, a removal schedule, no overflow or exposed waste.
MET
Covered bins throughout, regular removal, no overflow.
NOT MET
Overflowing or uncovered bins visible anywhere on the property.
Criterion 6.6
Statement: Staff with visible illness are not assigned to guest-facing or food-handling duties.
Why: One of the most direct, preventable transmission routes between staff and guests — a policy question, not a facilities one. Evidence sought: A stated policy; staff confirming it’s actually followed, not just written down.
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-01: Housekeeping Standards & Infection Prevention
MET
A clear policy exists and staff confirm it’s actually followed.
NOT MET
Staff say they’re expected to work regardless of how they feel.
Criterion 6.7 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Air conditioning and central ventilation systems are cleaned and maintained on a documented schedule.
Why: Grounded in the same “Environment of Care” logic as real healthcare accreditation — an unmaintained AC or central HVAC system is a genuine infection risk, including Legionella, not a comfort issue. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: A maintenance log with real dates, not a claimed schedule.
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-02: HVAC & Water System Environmental Safety
MET
A dated maintenance log within the expected service interval.
NOT MET
No one can say when the system was last serviced.
Criterion 6.8
Statement: Bathroom and toilet ventilation specifically is functional, not merely assumed.
Why: Distinct from general HVAC (6.7) — poor bathroom ventilation drives mould and odour as well as pathogen risk, and is often overlooked precisely because it’s assumed to work. Evidence sought: A working extractor fan or window tested directly during the visit.
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-02: HVAC & Water System Environmental Safety
MET
Extractor fan or window confirmed functional on direct test.
NOT MET
Fan present but not actually working, or no ventilation at all.
Criterion 6.9 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Lighting is adequate throughout the facility, especially stairs, walkways, and bathrooms.
Why: A genuine fall and injury prevention issue, not an aesthetic one — read together with Standard 10 (Fall Prevention), not in isolation. Evidence sought: Direct observation of lighting on stairs, walkways, and bathrooms at the time of the visit.
MET
Stairs, walkways, and bathrooms adequately lit at the time of the visit.
NOT MET
A dark stairwell or walkway with no functioning light.
Criterion 6.10 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Ground-fault (RCD/GFCI) protection is installed on bathroom and other wet-area electrical circuits — including any electric shower heater or instant water heater at the showerhead.
Why: A real, documented, often-fatal hazard — the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has found ground-fault devices could prevent over two-thirds of home electrocutions, most commonly caused by faulty water heater grounding. Not theoretical — added after a real, personally reported bathroom electrocution. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Physical confirmation of ground-fault protection on the relevant circuit, not just an assumption it’s there.
Satisfying training: TGM-HYG-02: HVAC & Water System Environmental Safety
MET
GFCI/RCD protection confirmed present on the bathroom circuit, including the shower heater.
NOT MET
An electric shower heater wired directly with no ground-fault protection.
Standard 7 of 11
Guest Safety & Security
Intent: The remaining guest-facing hazards not covered by Standards 1–6 and 10–11 — communication, physical security, specific structural and environmental risks, and the honest handling of active renovation work.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 7.6 and 7.7 only. |
| Full Standard | All 8 criteria. |
Criterion 7.1
Statement: Emergency contact numbers (local medical, police) are posted and known to staff.
Why: Underpins Standard 5 (Medical Emergency Response) — the right protocol is useless if nobody can quickly find the number to call. Evidence sought: Numbers posted somewhere staff can actually access quickly; a staff member who can produce them without searching.
MET
Numbers posted at reception or the staff station; any staff member can produce them instantly.
NOT MET
Staff would have to search online in an actual emergency.
Criterion 7.2
Statement: Guest rooms have functioning locks.
Why: The basic security expectation of any accommodation — tested directly, not assumed from the presence of a lock mechanism. Evidence sought: Physical test of locks on a sample of guest rooms.
MET
Sampled locks engage and hold properly.
NOT MET
A sampled lock doesn’t fully engage or can be forced easily.
Criterion 7.3
Statement: Wildlife or terrain-specific safety briefings are given where the location warrants it (e.g., proximity to wildlife areas).
Why: Genuinely location-dependent, not a universal requirement — applied where local conditions actually call for it, same logic as the mosquito criterion in Standard 3. Evidence sought: A briefing process confirmed for properties in relevant locations (rural, safari, coastal with specific risks).
Satisfying training: TGM-GUEST-01: Guest Safety Briefing & Wildlife Awareness
MET
A safari property briefs guests on wildlife safety at check-in, consistently.
NOT MET
A rural/wildlife-adjacent property gives guests no relevant information at all.
Criterion 7.4
Statement: A clear process exists for a guest to report a safety concern during their stay.
Why: Every criterion on this whole standard can have a gap an assessor doesn’t catch on a single visit — a working guest-reporting channel is the ongoing backstop between formal assessments. Evidence sought: A real, accessible reporting channel a guest could actually use, not a theoretical “talk to management.”
MET
A clear, accessible channel (front desk, written form, direct contact) guests are actually told about.
NOT MET
No defined process; a guest would have to guess who to tell.
Criterion 7.5
Statement: Vehicles used for guest transport (if operated by the facility) are roadworthy and drivers licensed.
Why: Only applies where the facility actually runs guest transport — a genuine, conditional risk extending the facility’s duty of care beyond its own walls. Evidence sought: Vehicle registration/inspection documents; driver’s licence verification.
MET
Valid vehicle documentation and licensed drivers confirmed.
NOT MET
A guest-transport vehicle with no current registration, or a driver without a valid licence.
Criterion 7.6 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Sharp hazards are identified and addressed — exposed edges, broken glass or tiles, blades and similar objects are not left accessible to guests, and any sharps requiring disposal (e.g., used razors) have a safe disposal method.
Why: The same “Environment of Care” sharps-management logic used in real healthcare accreditation, adapted for a non-clinical setting. Evidence sought: Physical inspection for exposed hazards; a visible sharps disposal method where relevant (e.g., bathroom razor disposal).
MET
No exposed sharp hazards found; a safe disposal method for razors is present.
NOT MET
A broken tile edge or exposed blade accessible to guests, no disposal method for sharps.
Criterion 7.7 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Balconies, terraces, and other elevated guest areas have railings meeting a basic safety standard — roughly 1 metre minimum height, no gaps wide enough for a child’s head to pass through, and no horizontal elements that make the railing easy to climb.
Why: Railing failure is a real, documented cause of serious hotel injury and death — a recent nightclub railing collapse killed two people and injured fifteen under crowd load, not a cosmetic feature. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Physical measurement of railing height and gap width on a sample of elevated areas.
MET
Railings meet the height and gap criteria on all sampled elevated areas.
NOT MET
A railing below the minimum height, loose, or with climbable horizontal rails.
Criterion 7.8
Statement: Any construction, renovation, or extension work is physically cordoned off and clearly signed, with reasonable steps taken to limit dust, noise, and odour reaching occupied guest areas.
Why: Renovation is normal and not a defect in itself — an unprotected, unsigned work area a guest can wander into is the actual hazard this criterion checks. Evidence sought: Physical inspection of any active work area for barriers and signage.
MET
A cordoned, clearly signed work area, with reasonable dust/noise mitigation for nearby guests.
NOT MET
Active work area with no barrier, no signage, guests able to walk straight into it.
Standard 8 of 11
Accessibility
Intent: Not whole-building accessibility — a 200-year-old stone building in a historic old town often genuinely cannot be fully retrofitted, and this Standard doesn’t fail a facility for its own architecture. What it checks: whether a disabled guest can reach at least one room, one bathroom, one common area, and whether the facility has honestly considered the question at all.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 8.1 and 8.5 only. |
| Full Standard | All 5 criteria. |
Criterion 8.1 ESSENTIALS
Statement: At least one guest room is accessible, or the facility can clearly explain why its physical layout genuinely prevents this.
Why: The threshold item — a genuine attempt, not a demand for retrofit a historic property can’t provide. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: A real accessible room, or a credible, specific explanation of the structural barrier if none exists.
Satisfying training: TGM-ACC-01: Disability Awareness & Accessible Service
MET
One genuinely accessible room exists, or a specific, credible structural reason is given for why none can.
NOT MET
No accessible room and no explanation offered — the question was simply never considered.
Criterion 8.2
Statement: At least one bathroom usable by the accessible room is genuinely accessible, not just nominally labelled as such.
Why: An “accessible” room with an inaccessible bathroom doesn’t actually solve the problem 8.1 addresses. Evidence sought: Physical inspection of the bathroom attached to or near the accessible room.
MET
Genuinely usable bathroom — real clearance, grab bars, accessible fixtures.
NOT MET
Labelled “accessible” but a wheelchair genuinely cannot fit or turn inside.
Criterion 8.3
Statement: At least one common area (dining, reception, or equivalent) is reachable without stairs or another uncrossable barrier.
Why: Accessibility to the room alone isn’t enough if a guest is then isolated from shared facility life. Evidence sought: Physical route check from the accessible room to at least one common area.
MET
A step-free route exists to at least one common area.
NOT MET
Every common area requires stairs with no alternative route.
Criterion 8.4
Statement: Staff know how to assist a guest with a disability if asked — this is a staff-awareness check, not a construction requirement, and costs nothing to meet.
Why: Even a facility with real structural limitations can still meet this one — it’s deliberately the lowest-cost, highest-reach criterion in this Standard. Evidence sought: A staff member describing, confidently and specifically, how they’d assist a guest who asks.
Satisfying training: TGM-ACC-01: Disability Awareness & Accessible Service
MET
Staff describe specific, practical assistance confidently.
NOT MET
Staff are visibly unsure or have never considered the question.
Criterion 8.5 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Fire and medical emergency procedures (Standards 4 and 5) account for guests with mobility, hearing, or vision impairments — a deaf guest cannot rely on an audible alarm alone, and a wheelchair user cannot rely on a stairwell. Staff know, in advance, what they would actually do.
Why: Accessibility and emergency response were found to be treated as separate problems elsewhere — this criterion exists specifically to connect them, not leave the connection implicit. Evidence sought: Staff describing a specific plan for assisting a mobility-, hearing-, or vision-impaired guest during an actual evacuation.
Satisfying training: TGM-ACC-01: Disability Awareness & Accessible Service
MET
Staff describe a specific evacuation plan for an impaired guest, thought through in advance.
NOT MET
Staff assume the general evacuation plan “would just work” for every guest.
Standard 9 of 11
Management & Continuity
Intent: Grounded in 9001 management-system logic — safety isn’t a one-time achievement, it’s a system that keeps working after the assessor leaves. None of this Standard is Essentials-tagged, deliberately: formal management-system documentation is exactly the overhead a small, owner-operated property shouldn’t need to carry to be verified as safe.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | None of these 6 — this entire Standard is Full Standard only. |
| Full Standard | All 6 criteria. |
Criterion 9.1
Statement: A named person is responsible for health and safety at the facility.
Why: Every criterion on this whole standard ultimately needs an owner — without one, responsibility diffuses and nothing gets maintained. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: A specific named individual, not “the team” or “whoever’s around.”
MET
A specific named person, known to all staff.
NOT MET
“It’s everyone’s responsibility” with no specific owner.
Criterion 9.2
Statement: Incidents (illness, injury, safety near-misses) are logged, not just handled informally.
Why: The central collection point for the incident-logging requirements scattered through earlier Standards (water illness in Standard 1, food illness in Standard 2, bed bugs in Standard 3) — one real system, not several disconnected ones. Evidence sought: An actual log, with real or recent entries (or a credible explanation if genuinely empty).
MET
A real, maintained log that other Standards’ incidents actually feed into.
NOT MET
No log exists; incidents are remembered informally, if at all.
Criterion 9.3
Statement: Staff receive refresher training on the above at a documented interval.
Why: Training mentioned across multiple earlier Standards (food safety, fire response, BLS) degrades over time without refreshers — this is the continuity check behind all of them. Training Requirements → Evidence sought: A documented refresher interval with evidence it’s actually followed, not just stated.
MET
A documented refresher interval with dated records confirming it happens.
NOT MET
Training happened once, years ago, with no refresher since.
Criterion 9.4
Statement: The facility has reviewed and updated its own practices at least once since its last ASF check-in.
Why: Certification is valid for three years with light annual check-ins between — this confirms the facility is actually reviewing itself in between, not waiting passively for the next visit. Evidence sought: A specific, dated example of a practice reviewed and updated since the last check-in.
MET
A specific, dated example of a reviewed and updated practice.
NOT MET
Nothing has changed since the last check-in; no review occurred.
Criterion 9.5
Statement: Corrective actions from any previous assessment have been addressed.
Why: A facility that’s been assessed before and never fixed what was flagged hasn’t actually improved — this closes the loop. Evidence sought: Direct comparison between prior findings (if any) and the current state.
MET
Previously flagged issues are now genuinely resolved.
NOT MET
The same issue flagged last time is still present, unaddressed.
Criterion 9.6
Statement: A written policy names specific, concrete triggers for an internal safety review — at minimum: any Essentials-tagged item failing re-assessment, any guest-reported safety incident, or any new local regulatory requirement.
Why: Deliberately concrete rather than aspirational — a named list a facility can be checked against directly, not a general good intention that can’t actually be verified. Evidence sought: The written policy itself, naming specific trigger events, not a vague commitment to “stay safe.”
MET
A written policy naming specific, checkable trigger events.
NOT MET
A general statement of good intentions with no specific, checkable triggers named.
Standard 10 of 11
Fall Prevention
Intent: Slip-and-fall is the single highest-frequency guest liability claim at hotels — not a minor issue bundled into general safety. Given its own Standard deliberately, rather than scattered across others. Read alongside Standard 6 (lighting) and Standard 7 (balcony railings), which are part of the same underlying risk, not separate problems.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criteria 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.5. |
| Full Standard | All 7 criteria. |
Criterion 10.1 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Bathroom and pool-area floors have a non-slip surface or non-slip mats where tile is used.
Why: Bathrooms and pool decks are the two most commonly cited locations in real hotel slip-and-fall claims. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Physical check of flooring material and traction in sampled bathrooms and pool areas.
Satisfying training: TGM-FALL-01: Fall Prevention & Environmental Safety
MET
Non-slip tile or mats confirmed in sampled bathrooms and pool deck.
NOT MET
Smooth, polished tile with no mat or non-slip treatment where it’s routinely wet.
Criterion 10.2 ESSENTIALS
Statement: A grab bar is fitted near the shower/tub in guest bathrooms.
Why: A documented real-world case: an older guest suffered a traumatic brain injury from a bathroom slip with no grab bar present — a real, specific precedent, not a hypothetical. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Physical presence and secure mounting of a grab bar in sampled bathrooms.
Satisfying training: TGM-FALL-01: Fall Prevention & Environmental Safety
MET
A securely mounted grab bar present near the shower/tub.
NOT MET
No grab bar present, or one that’s loose and doesn’t hold real weight.
Criterion 10.3 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Staircases have functional handrails.
Why: Stairs are a leading fall location in any multi-level building, and a handrail is the single lowest-cost, highest-effect intervention available. Evidence sought: Physical check that handrails exist, are securely mounted, and run the full length of the stairway.
Satisfying training: TGM-FALL-01: Fall Prevention & Environmental Safety
MET
Secure handrails running the full length of sampled stairways.
NOT MET
No handrail, or one that stops partway up the stairs.
Criterion 10.4
Statement: Wet-floor warning signage is used during cleaning or after spills.
Why: A low-cost, immediate intervention for the single moment a floor becomes genuinely more dangerous than usual. Evidence sought: Signage present and actually in use during cleaning observed at the time of the visit.
MET
Wet-floor signage genuinely in use during observed cleaning.
NOT MET
No signage used, or signage exists but sits unused in a storeroom.
Criterion 10.5 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Uneven steps, thresholds, or level changes are marked with visible warning signage (“watch your step”) where a guest could reasonably miss them.
Why: Older and historic properties especially often have genuine, unavoidable level changes — the fix isn’t rebuilding the floor, it’s making sure a guest sees it coming. Evidence sought: Visible signage or marking at any genuine level change encountered during the walk-through.
Satisfying training: TGM-FALL-01: Fall Prevention & Environmental Safety
MET
A genuinely unavoidable level change is clearly marked and visible.
NOT MET
An unmarked step-down a guest could easily miss, especially at night.
Criterion 10.6
Statement: Walkways are kept clear of trip hazards — loose cables, cords, or carpet edges.
Why: A genuinely avoidable, maintenance-level hazard — unlike structural level changes (10.5), this is purely about upkeep. Evidence sought: Direct observation of walkways for loose cables, cords, or lifting carpet edges.
MET
Walkways clear of cables, cords, and lifting carpet at the time of the visit.
NOT MET
A cable strung across a walkway, or a lifted carpet edge in a high-traffic area.
Criterion 10.7
Statement: This Standard is read alongside Standard 6 (lighting adequacy) and Standard 7 (balcony railings) — together, not separately, since poor lighting and a missing grab bar are often the same incident, not two.
Why: An explicit integration check, not a new physical requirement — fall risk is rarely caused by one single factor, and this criterion confirms the connected standards are actually being read together during assessment. Evidence sought: The assessor’s own confirmation that lighting (Standard 6.9) and railing (Standard 7.7) findings were cross-checked against this Standard’s findings, not assessed in isolation.
MET
Fall-relevant findings from Standards 6 and 7 are cross-referenced in the assessment, not siloed.
NOT MET
Lighting and railings assessed with no connection drawn to fall risk at all.
Standard 11 of 11
Allergen & Material Safety
Intent: Dust mite allergy is medically real, not a preference — a documented cause of rhinitis and asthma, affecting roughly 1 in 10 people, within a population where over half are sensitive to at least one allergen. Major hotel chains already run dedicated “allergy-friendly room” programmes for exactly this reason.
| Track | Applies as |
|---|---|
| Essentials | Criterion 11.1 only. |
| Full Standard | All 4 criteria. |
Criterion 11.1 ESSENTIALS
Statement: Mattress and pillow protectors (dust-mite-barrier type) are in use.
Why: The one proven intervention for reducing guest dust mite exposure — a two-year-old unprotected pillow can be up to 10% dust mite matter by weight. Evidence Base → Evidence sought: Physical check for protective encasements on mattresses and pillows in sampled rooms.
Satisfying training: TGM-ALG-01: Allergen-Aware Housekeeping & Guest Amenities
MET
Barrier-type protectors confirmed on mattresses and pillows in sampled rooms.
NOT MET
No protective encasements on mattresses or pillows in sampled rooms.
Criterion 11.2
Statement: A hypoallergenic or fragrance-free pillow option is available on request.
Why: A genuinely low-cost option that extends real choice to allergy-sensitive guests without requiring a full room retrofit. Evidence sought: A real pillow option confirmed available, not just claimed verbally.
Satisfying training: TGM-ALG-01: Allergen-Aware Housekeeping & Guest Amenities
MET
A hypoallergenic pillow genuinely available and produced on request.
NOT MET
Staff say “we don’t have anything like that.”
Criterion 11.3
Statement: A fragrance-free or hypoallergenic amenity option (shampoo, soap) is available on request.
Why: Fragranced amenity products are a real, common trigger for contact allergies and sensitivities — this is the equivalent choice to 11.2, applied to bathroom amenities. Evidence sought: A real alternative amenity confirmed available, not just claimed verbally.
Satisfying training: TGM-ALG-01: Allergen-Aware Housekeeping & Guest Amenities
MET
A fragrance-free amenity option genuinely available on request.
NOT MET
Only the standard fragranced amenities exist, with no alternative.
Criterion 11.4
Statement: Bedding is laundered on a schedule and at a temperature documented to reduce dust mite presence.
Why: Connects directly to Standard 6’s general laundering criterion, but specifically for the temperature threshold that actually affects dust mite survival, not just visible cleanliness. Evidence sought: A documented laundering temperature and schedule, specific to dust mite reduction.
Satisfying training: TGM-ALG-01: Allergen-Aware Housekeeping & Guest Amenities
MET
A documented laundering temperature and schedule specific to dust mite reduction.
NOT MET
Bedding is “washed regularly” with no documented temperature or schedule.
New — Conditional, Not Core
Facility Standards — only fill in what you actually have
The 80 core criteria above apply to every property, regardless of size or amenities. But a hotel with a spa, a pool, a massage service, or a fitness room carries real health and safety questions that a small guesthouse without any of these simply doesn’t have — and shouldn’t be scored against. The rule is simple: more facilities, more standards; fewer facilities, fewer standards. Each module below activates only if that amenity exists on-site. None of this is medical-grade — these are simplified, non-clinical criteria, adapted down from ASF’s own (far more extensive) healthcare facility standards for exactly this reason.
Swimming Pool (if the facility has one)
Pool.1
Statement: Pool water is tested and chlorinated/treated on a documented schedule.
Why: Connects directly to Standard 1, Water Safety — pool water chemistry degrades quickly with use and is a direct infection risk untreated. Evidence sought: A dated chemical test log.
MET
Current, legible test log with levels in range.
NOT MET
No log, or last entry weeks old.
Pool.2
Statement: Depth is clearly marked, and “no diving” signage is posted wherever depth doesn’t support it.
Why: Diving into insufficient depth is a documented cause of catastrophic spinal injury, not a minor oversight. Evidence sought: Physical check of depth markings and diving signage.
MET
Depth clearly marked; no-diving signage where depth is shallow.
NOT MET
No depth markings anywhere on the pool.
Pool.3
Statement: A physical barrier, lockable gate, or a clear supervision policy exists for unaccompanied minors.
Why: Drowning is the leading real-world pool risk for unsupervised children specifically. Evidence sought: A real barrier or a genuinely enforced supervision policy, not a sign alone.
MET
A lockable gate or an actively enforced supervision policy.
NOT MET
Open access, no barrier, no stated policy.
Pool.4
Statement: Rescue equipment (lifebuoy, reaching pole) is present and accessible poolside.
Why: The minimum real response capability for a drowning event in progress. Evidence sought: Physical presence and accessibility of rescue equipment at poolside.
MET
A lifebuoy or reaching pole, genuinely accessible poolside.
NOT MET
No rescue equipment present, or locked away inaccessibly.
Pool.5
Statement: If the pool is heated by a gas heater, it is covered by the Standard 4 carbon monoxide detector requirement — not treated as a separate system.
Why: Pool heaters are specifically identified as a leading cause of real CO poisoning incidents at hotels — an explicit cross-reference, not a new requirement. Evidence sought: Confirm the pool heater is included in the Standard 4.7 CO detector coverage, not exempted as “outdoor equipment.”
MET
Gas pool heater area covered by a working CO detector.
NOT MET
Gas pool heater present, no CO detector anywhere near it.
Spa, Sauna, Steam Room, or Hot Tub (if the facility has any of these)
Spa.1
Statement: Hot tub/jacuzzi water is tested and treated on a documented schedule.
Why: Warm, aerated water is a known higher-risk environment for Legionella specifically — distinct from the pool and plumbing criteria elsewhere in this standard. Evidence sought: A dated chemical test log specific to the hot tub, separate from the pool log.
MET
Current, dedicated test log for the hot tub.
NOT MET
Hot tub water treated as “covered by” the general pool log, with no dedicated record.
Spa.2
Statement: Maximum recommended time and temperature are posted for sauna and steam room use.
Why: Prolonged heat exposure carries real cardiovascular risk — standard safety practice wherever these facilities operate. Evidence sought: Visible posted guidance at the facility.
MET
Visible, clear posted time/temperature guidance.
NOT MET
No guidance posted anywhere near the facility.
Spa.3
Statement: A health contraindication notice is posted (pregnancy, heart conditions, and similar).
Why: Standard practice wherever heat-therapy facilities operate — a genuine, low-cost guest-safety communication. Evidence sought: Visible notice at or near the entrance to the facility.
MET
A visible contraindication notice at the entrance.
NOT MET
No health notice posted anywhere.
Spa.4
Statement: A way to call for help exists from inside wet-heat areas, or these areas are supervised.
Why: A guest who becomes unwell in a sauna or steam room is isolated in exactly the circumstances where quick response matters most. Evidence sought: A real call button/intercom, or confirmed staff supervision of the area.
MET
A functional call button, or genuine staff supervision.
NOT MET
No way to summon help and no supervision at all.
Massage / Spa Treatment Services (if the facility offers these)
Massage.1
Statement: Staff performing treatments have documented relevant training.
Why: Hands-on therapeutic contact without real training carries genuine injury risk, especially for clients with underlying conditions. Evidence sought: A real training credential for staff performing treatments.
MET
Documented, relevant training credential for treating staff.
NOT MET
No training record for staff performing treatments.
Massage.2
Statement: Linens and surfaces are cleaned between clients to a documented standard.
Why: Direct, prolonged skin contact between clients carries real hygiene risk without a genuine cleaning standard. Evidence sought: A documented between-client cleaning protocol.
MET
A documented, consistently followed cleaning protocol.
NOT MET
No defined standard; “we just change the sheet usually.”
Massage.3
Statement: A basic client health/contraindication check happens before treatment begins (recent surgery, pregnancy, relevant conditions).
Why: Certain treatments are genuinely contraindicated for specific health conditions — a real question asked, not assumed away. Evidence sought: Staff confirming an actual check happens, not just a release form signed.
MET
A real health check happens before every treatment.
NOT MET
No check at all, treatment starts immediately.
Fitness Room / Gym (if the facility has one)
Deliberately simplified from ASF’s existing, far more detailed healthcare fitness facility standard — this is a hotel gym, not a medical rehabilitation facility.
Fitness.1
Statement: Equipment is visibly maintained — no frayed cables, loose fittings, or obvious hazards.
Why: Mechanical equipment failure during use is a genuine, documented injury mechanism. Evidence sought: Physical inspection of equipment in use.
MET
Equipment inspected, no visible defects.
NOT MET
Frayed cable or loose fitting found on inspection.
Fitness.2
Statement: Basic usage and safety signage is posted.
Why: Many guests using an unfamiliar gym have no trainer present — signage is the only safety communication available to them. Evidence sought: Visible signage in the fitness area.
MET
Basic safety/usage signage visible in the room.
NOT MET
No signage of any kind in the fitness area.
Fitness.3
Statement: A first-aid kit is accessible from the fitness area — the same Gateway kit, not a separate one, as long as it’s genuinely reachable.
Why: Exercise-related injuries happen in gyms specifically — proximity to first aid matters here more than in most common areas. Evidence sought: Confirm a real, reachable first-aid kit, whether dedicated or the same one covered under the Gateway.
MET
A first-aid kit genuinely reachable from the fitness area.
NOT MET
The nearest kit is a significant distance away, in another building or floor.
Fitness.4
Statement: Any age restriction for unsupervised use is clearly stated.
Why: Heavy equipment and a minor using it unsupervised is a real, foreseeable risk this criterion checks the facility has actually considered. Evidence sought: A stated policy, visible or told to guests.
MET
A clear, stated age policy for the fitness area.
NOT MET
No policy exists; anyone of any age can use the equipment unsupervised.
Bar / Alcohol Service (if the facility serves alcohol)
Bar.1
Statement: A valid liquor licence is held where required.
Why: A basic legal-operation check, accepted directly as means of verification per the principle established earlier on this page. Evidence sought: The real licence document where local law requires one.
MET
A valid, current liquor licence produced directly.
NOT MET
Alcohol served with no licence where one is legally required.
Bar.2
Statement: Staff follow a basic responsible-service policy — age verification, and a documented approach to visibly intoxicated guests.
Why: Over-service is a genuine safety issue for the guest themselves and others on the property, not just a liability concern. Evidence sought: Staff describing the real policy, not a vague gesture at “we’re careful.”
MET
Staff describe a real, specific responsible-service approach.
NOT MET
No policy; staff say they “just keep serving” regardless.
Elevator / Lift (if the facility has one)
Elevator.1
Statement: A current maintenance/inspection certificate is held.
Why: Mechanical entrapment and fall risk are genuine, documented elevator hazards without real maintenance — accepted directly as means of verification. Evidence sought: A current, dated inspection certificate.
MET
A current, dated inspection certificate produced directly.
NOT MET
No certificate, or one significantly expired.
Elevator.2
Statement: An emergency call button or phone inside the lift is functional, and staff know the response procedure.
Why: A trapped guest with no way to call for help and no one who knows how to respond is a real, compounding risk. Evidence sought: Direct test of the call function and a staff member describing the actual response.
MET
Working call function; staff know and can describe the response.
NOT MET
Call button doesn’t work, or staff don’t know what they’d do.
Children’s Play Area / Kids’ Club (if the facility has one)
KidsClub.1
Statement: A clear supervision and sign-in/sign-out policy exists.
Why: A different risk profile than a general common area — a dedicated children’s space creates a specific duty of care this criterion checks directly. Evidence sought: A real, working sign-in/out system and genuine staff supervision presence.
MET
A real sign-in/out system, genuinely staffed and supervised.
NOT MET
An unsupervised play area with no tracking of who’s present.
KidsClub.2
Statement: Play equipment shows no obvious hazards (sharp edges, trip points, entrapment gaps).
Why: Child-specific physical hazards — entrapment gaps especially — are a distinct risk category from general sharp-hazard checks elsewhere in this standard. Evidence sought: Physical inspection of play equipment in use.
MET
No obvious hazards found on inspection.
NOT MET
A sharp edge or entrapment gap found on inspection.
One more worth a decision, not yet built in: watersports/activity equipment (kayaks, diving gear — relevant mainly to coastal and lake properties). A genuine candidate for the same conditional-module treatment above, held back pending a decision on scope rather than left out by oversight.
One practical path — three layers working together, not one bloated standard
A facility shouldn’t have to chase three disconnected certifications with three disconnected processes. But the right fix for that isn’t merging everything into one oversized standard — it’s showing clearly that three real frameworks already divide this ground sensibly, and a facility doing ASF Tourism is already most of the way toward the other two, not starting from zero on each.
Government level
A real UN Tourism instrument, adopted 2022, with 26+ countries formally adhering. Covers consumer rights and emergency assistance for tourists at the national, legal level — not facility-level safety.
Facility level — environmental Optional
Sustainability, environmental impact, community and cultural practice. GSTC‘s own standard states explicitly that health and safety are outside its scope.
Facility level — safety
ASF Tourism
Water, food, pest, fire, hygiene — independently verified on-site. The one piece neither of the other two covers.
The environmental layer is marked optional deliberately — pursuing GSTC or Ecotourism Kenya certification is a separate choice a facility can make on its own, not something ASF Tourism requires or depends on. The practical version of “one path” is this: ASF stays lean and does the one thing it’s built for exceptionally well, and the standard itself is written so a facility that completes it already has most of the operational documentation GSTC‘s auditors would also want to see — without ASF trying to independently verify environmental criteria it has no particular expertise in judging. Where a facility also wants GSTC or Ecotourism Kenya certification, ASF verification is a head start on that process, not a separate, disconnected effort.
This is also why the standard didn’t grow larger to absorb UNWTO‘s or GSTC‘s ground: a 90-criteria standard covering everything would recreate precisely the bureaucracy problem the Essentials track above was built to solve. Narrow and genuinely independent beats broad and diluted.
References
This standard and its proposed process were built against real, checked precedent — not written in isolation. These are the sources it draws on, for comparison, caution, or direct methodological reference.
- TÜV NORD CERT — “Hygiene and Cleanliness Checked.” Independent on-site hygiene verification for hotels, 0.5–2 man-days depending on facility size. Referenced directly for the half-day assessment benchmark. tuev-nord.de
- SGS — Vendor Assessment Program, Hygiene Audit for Hotels and Restaurants. Standard product scoped around a 0.5 man-day on-site audit. Second confirmation that half a day is credible, established practice among major inspection bodies, not an ASF shortcut.
- UNWTO (UN Tourism) — International Code for the Protection of Tourists (2022). A real UN Tourism instrument, formally adhered to by 26+ member states. Government-level consumer protection and emergency assistance for tourists — referenced to show where ASF Tourism sits relative to existing UN-level frameworks, not duplicating them.
- Bureau Veritas — SafeGuard label (Marina Bay Sands and others). On-site audits with medical advisory input (Cleveland Clinic). Referenced as the standard of genuine third-party verification this programme aims to match.
- GSTC (Global Sustainable Tourism Council) — Hotel Standard v4.01. States explicitly that health, safety, and security “fall under the responsibility of specialized authorities and are outside the scope of this standard set.” Cited as direct confirmation of the gap this standard fills.
- Ecotourism Kenya — Eco-rating Certification Scheme. Kenya’s own GSTC-recognised environmental certification, since 2002. Referenced for its documented uptake challenges among smaller operators.
- Kenya Tourism Regulatory Authority — EAC Classification System. The mandatory national star-rating and bronze/silver/gold scheme. Referenced to define this standard’s boundary — ASF verification sits alongside TRA classification, never inside or in place of it.
- WTTC — “Safe Travels” Stamp. The most globally recognised safety label in travel, explicitly self-assessed rather than independently verified. Referenced as the familiar concept this standard borrows the idea of a “safety stamp” from, while changing the verification behind it.
- Qualifyze / Salinen Austria shared-audit case study. Pharmaceutical supply-chain audit sharing, scaling from 5 to 18 participating companies over three years, avoiding 17 separate audits. Referenced as real precedent for the batched-mission model proposed here.
- Diapharm — joint API inspection “audit tours.” Multi-facility regional inspection trips run specifically to cut travel cost. Referenced as a second, independent precedent for batched assessment.
- A genuine document (/TC 228, approved May 2021), underpinning a real national scheme: endorsed by Spain’s Ministry of Health, audited by independent certification bodies, not self-assessed. The closest existing precedent to ASF Tourism’s own model — government-backed, -referenced, and independently verified. Turkey runs a comparable national “Safe Tourism Certification Program” of its own.
- Ecotourism Kenya — Eco-rating Certification Guide (2016, revised). The actual certification guide, reviewed directly: of 13 scored parameters, Health & Safety is one line — “compliance with health and safety regulations… evidenced by documentation” — worded almost identically across all three award levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold). Cited as direct, primary-source confirmation of the gap ASF Tourism exists to fill, not a secondhand description of it.
- Travelife — an international sustainability certification body (self-reported compliance plus an independent on-site audit), operating in Kenya through a formal partnership with Ecotourism Kenya and KATO. Kenya’s own Ministry of Tourism and Kenya Tourism Board are listed as partner organisations of this scheme — a real, documented example of an international certification body government-endorsed inside one of ASF Tourism’s own target countries. Same pattern as GSTC and Ecotourism Kenya: environmental and social sustainability, not independently verified safety.
The global landscape, compiled
Research estimates put the number of sustainable tourism certification schemes worldwide at over 200 (DestiNet). Most of the major, internationally recognised ones are self-reported compliance backed by a paid on-site audit — the same basic shape as Travelife and Green Globe below. Every single one found, without exception, is scoped to environmental and social sustainability, not independently verified health and safety. That gap is consistent across all of them, not just the few examples already cited above.
Swipe left to see the full table on a small screen →
| Scheme | Reach | Model | Typical cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green Globe | 83 countries | 44 criteria, 380+ indicators, on-site audit, annual renewal | $825–$5,500/yr |
| EarthCheck | 70+ countries | Benchmarking + certification, science-based | From AU$6,600/yr |
| Rainforest Alliance | Global | Biodiversity and community-focused audit | Varies |
| Green Key | 70+ countries | Largely self-assessment based | Varies by country |
| Blue Flag | Global | Beaches and marinas specifically, not accommodation | Varies |
| Biosphere | Global | Tracks against 169 UN SDG targets | Varies |
| STEP (Sustainable Travel International) | Global | 5-level scale, renewed every 2 years | $2,000–$10,000/yr |
| Green Seal | United States | Non-profit, founded 1989 | Varies |
| Audubon International (Green Lodging) | Primarily US | Best for smaller independent hotels | $500–$1,000 |
| Green Tourism | UK-based | Boutiques and independents | £165–£705 |
| Fair Trade Tourism | Primarily Southern/East Africa | Fair-trade principles applied to tourism | Varies |
| Good Travel Seal (Travalyst-aligned) | Global | 3 progressive levels, GSTC-aligned | Varies |
Every scheme on this list — and, per the DestiNet estimate, the roughly 190 more not individually profiled here — competes on the same ground: environmental and social sustainability. None independently verifies water safety, food hygiene, pest control, or fire safety. That specific space stays genuinely open.
A Future Direction — Not Built Yet
One core, with room to grow — offered, never imposed
Why any of this matters, stated plainly: the goal is a tourism industry that is genuinely safe and responsible, and travellers who can actually feel that — not guess at it — when they choose where to stay. Over 200 separate schemes worldwide means a facility that wants to do right by its guests on more than one front has to repeat the same basic effort again and again, with a different form and a different fee each time. That friction doesn’t serve the traveller. It just makes doing the right thing harder than it should be.
ASF is not becoming Green Globe, EarthCheck, or GSTC, and does not issue their certifications. What’s worth exploring instead, and only ever as something ASF proposes to a country or local partner — never required, never assumed — is ASF’s own genuinely comprehensive certification: the health and safety core that exists today, plus real, independently verified coverage of other responsible-tourism issues where a partner wants that breadth. One system, under ASF’s own standard and ASF’s own verification, instead of a facility juggling several.
The core — mandatory, always free, everywhere
The 80-criteria Health & Safety Standard above. Every ASF Tourism partnership includes this, in full, with nothing watered down to make room for anything else.
Broader coverage — proposed only where a partner wants it
Not built yet. If developed, it would work the same way as the deference principle above: a facility with a real existing certificate (Green Globe, GSTC, or similar) submits it and it’s accepted. A facility without one is verified directly by ASF instead. Never a bare self-declaration with nothing behind it — always either a real external certificate or ASF’s own check, never forced on a partner who just wants the safety core.
Being explicit about this now: nothing described in this section exists today. It’s a direction worth keeping in mind as the core standard and its first local partner get settled — not a commitment, and not something to build before the fundamentals are proven.
80 criteria, 11 sections, a 6-item compulsory gateway, one day on-site. Only 22 of the 80 — one or two per category — are tagged Essentials; the rest apply to the Full Standard track only. Criteria, wording, and weighting remain open for input from whichever local partner ASF ultimately works with — in Kenya, Tanzania, Georgia, or elsewhere — before anything is finalised.