(for anyone not familiar with the term, K&R policy is a "kidnap and ransom policy")
Like rdtsc said, pointing to times when they did guarantee the return of an employee would be pretty close. Not entirely foolproof, since past performance is not indicative of future results (if they got the insurance policy without telling anyone, they could easily drop the insurance policy without telling anyone).
In a broader sense, the way this (disclosure without disclosure) is usually done is escrow of some sort. There is an agreement with a third party that the agreement will be upheld, with money down to that third party. If the money is required to be issued from the first party to the second party, the second party does not need to rely on the first party to uphold their end of the agreement. The third party (escrow service) has already assured that, and now the third party is responsible for issuing the payment. For example, if I'm promised payment for source code and I want to ensure I get the payment upon delivery of the source code, the company submits the payment to escrow and I submit the source code, and the escrow company is responsible for ensuring the payment and code get swapped appropriately.
I'm not sure if proving an escrow policy of "we will make sure you get home" and putting down $1m just in case of ransom violates that K&R clause or not. But without a contract saying specifically "we will get you home no matter what", there is no real assurance. Escrow might be the closest you'll come.
I'm sure companies doing business in areas where kidnap and ransom is common know the going rate for ransom. They also know how much an employee is worth to them (same rate as companies who take out life insurance on their employees). If you can get an insurance policy against someone's kidnap, you know how much they are worth and you know how much you'll be willing to spend on a ransom. If you can't narrow it down enough to escrow, you certainly don't have an insurance policy on it.
Like rdtsc said, pointing to times when they did guarantee the return of an employee would be pretty close. Not entirely foolproof, since past performance is not indicative of future results (if they got the insurance policy without telling anyone, they could easily drop the insurance policy without telling anyone).
In a broader sense, the way this (disclosure without disclosure) is usually done is escrow of some sort. There is an agreement with a third party that the agreement will be upheld, with money down to that third party. If the money is required to be issued from the first party to the second party, the second party does not need to rely on the first party to uphold their end of the agreement. The third party (escrow service) has already assured that, and now the third party is responsible for issuing the payment. For example, if I'm promised payment for source code and I want to ensure I get the payment upon delivery of the source code, the company submits the payment to escrow and I submit the source code, and the escrow company is responsible for ensuring the payment and code get swapped appropriately.
I'm not sure if proving an escrow policy of "we will make sure you get home" and putting down $1m just in case of ransom violates that K&R clause or not. But without a contract saying specifically "we will get you home no matter what", there is no real assurance. Escrow might be the closest you'll come.