As global markets turn more positive and the financial markets recover, employees are turning their attention to better managing their talent and headcount. While cost and efficiencies remain the key priorities in global mobility and business travel programs, we also see a new focus emerging: a duty of care to employees.

In a low-interest rate world, alternative investments may provide some relief – and unexpected benefits too. In today’s financial markets characterized by very low interest rates, higher-than-expected risks, and high volatility in equity prices, investing for the long term is a challenging proposition. Decent returns, even at the unexciting level of one two percentage points above inflation, may be difficult to achieve without bearing substantial risk.

Most multinational companies have a single property and casualty insurance policy that covers their factories and offices around the world in case of flood or fire or theft. But when it comes to global employee benefits, many have a different contract—or even many more than one—for each country, through several brokers, and a pooling or captive arrangement to boot.

Click here if your browser will not go into full-screen mode This content requires a subscription or a purchase. Please login below or subscribe here.

Human resources has successfully partnered with various functional areas for many years. Finance and HR partner to manage costs and optimize the value of compensation packages and other employee rewards. Operations and HR partner on devising solutions for work design, scheduling, and staffing. Marketing and HR partner to convert the firm’s brand into organizational culture and an employer brand.

Depending on health insurance plans is a common reality in Brazil. According to figures released by the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE) in June, 27.9% of the population had some type of health insurance plan in 2013, and more than one-third of the monthly payments were made by the policyholder’s employer. If we consider that this data is from 2013, we can assume that the total amount of private health insurance purchased by companies for their employees is even higher today.

The 2015 IGP Conference held in Boston, MA, IGP’s hometown, included three presentations that provided unique perspectives on otherwise well-known topics. GBV reports on the impact of a changing workforce and on adherence to a global benefits structure in this issue and will cover progressing from a wellness program to an integrated wellbeing approach in the March 2016 Special Issue about Wellness.

The MAXIS Conference devoted to sleep, “Sleep, a Business Case for Bedtime: The hidden Global Health Issue Impacting Employee Performance,” took place in November 2015 in Amsterdam, with the support of Zilveren Kruis, the health insurance division of Achmea.

Demographic factors and the current socio-economic context present major challenges to the statutory (i.e., state) pensions system. Lowering the statutory pension age is not an option, nor is increasing contributions. These two factors together inevitably lead to a tightening of the conditions for access to statutory pensions and to early retirement, as recent government measures in this area confirm.

While Mexico’s principal mandatory pension system began as a Defined Benefit (DB) program in 1973, in 1997 it was changed to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan, with individual accounts managed by financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies. This DC system is still open to new members, while the DB pension one is closed.

Click here if your browser will not go into full-screen mode This content requires a subscription or a purchase. Please login below or subscribe here.

In June 2010, Benefits & Compensation International published an article by Ms. Le Men-Tenailleau on variable compensation for bankers. It focused on the employment and tax law aspects of the regulations issued by the French government in 2009 and 2010, following the Pittsburgh G20 summit of September 2009.

Executive pay is a high-profile topic and almost everyone has an opinion on it. Many shareholders, workers and politicians believe the entire system is broken and requires a substantial overhaul. But, despite being well-intentioned, their suggested reforms may not be targeting the elements of pay most critical for shareholder value and society.

Negotiation is something we all do every day – both at work and in our private lives. But we don’t often sit back to think about the process. It’s natural, isn’t it? Well, actually, no.

Captive insurance has been an increasingly popular alternative risk transfer mechanism for U.S. companies for decades. But what may come as a surprise is that one of the great growth opportunities isn’t a new property or casualty exposure. It’s employee benefits.

Click here if your browser will not go into full-screen mode This content requires a subscription or a purchase. Please login below or subscribe here.

As the largest UK market place, Group Life is the best place to start our review. Every year the two most important surveys for U.K. Group Risk Insurers come out in April and June. Swiss Re’s ‘Group Watch’ shows how the Group Risk market is doing, and ORC International’s syndicated Group Risk adviser research shows how the industry is performing across the whole customer journey and anticipated future trends.

Captive solutions were created in the late 19th century to provide more flexible solutions in the insurance market. Since then they have evolved to become a practical form of risk management, offering multinationals two financial advantages: lower costs and more control over how they are insured.

In the 20th-century, companies were predominantly capital intensive and competed on cost efficiency. The 21st-century company is different: competitive success depends on a company’s intangible assets, such as human capital and the capacity for research and development, requiring significant and sustained investment.

Does it still make sense for a multinational company’s employee benefits plan to deal with 28 different social and tax legislations in the EU? Does it make sense for a multinational company to set up as many employee benefits plans as the number of the EU countries in which it operates?

Click here if your browser will not go into full-screen mode This content requires a subscription or a purchase. Please login below or subscribe here.

Certainly captives require more administration and an empowered internal advocate who can maximize utilization. But for mid-size and up international companies the benefits can be extensive. With barriers to mobility changing and global salary scales emerging, there is a movement toward common terms, pay, and benefit plans for mobile employees.

Today’s globalized and interconnected economies rely on an increasingly mobile workforce with a growing number of workers across sectors planning careers abroad. But while everybody recognize that expatriate employees are a key asset for companies, providing them with adequate benefits can be a huge challenge.

Human resource professionals from around the globe joined Lockton Global for the 2015 Global Benefits Forum May 4-6 in Barcelona, Spain. The two-and-a-half day conference – “The Future of Global HR & Employee Benefits” – was designed to help human resources professionals enhance their understanding of current international employee benefit trends and developments.

When it comes to extracting the true value from employee benefit captive risk financing, it’s not just about the direct cost savings anymore, says Tony Hore of Allianz. Here he shares some thoughts, interspersed with real-world case studies from his exclusive interview with Global Benefits Visions’ editorial staff.

When comparing pooling networks, a distinction is often made between Integrated and Non-Integrated Networks. But we suggest a far more important distinction can be made, based on whether or not the network’s pooling operations are based on reinsurance.

Does corporate social responsibility improve the value of a company? When making decisions, should companies only care about shareholders or should they take other stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, the environment) into account? This is a decades-old debate, but despite many cogent views on both sides, there’s surprisingly little hard evidence.