In September 2026, EIOPA published a follow-up note on its efforts to simplify insurance and occupational-pension regulation and supervision. It described reporting-template reductions associated with revised Solvency II: 26% for quarterly and 30% for annual templates for solo undertakings, with larger reductions cited for small and non-complex undertakings. EIOPA also said it had reviewed 25 sets of guidelines and shortened them by around a third.
These are EIOPA’s account of work done and planned. The update itself does not remove every obligation for every entity. The relevant legal text, classification of an undertaking, local supervisory expectations and effective dates still determine what an insurer or captive must submit. A board should avoid turning a general simplification statement into an unsupported compliance conclusion.
Less reporting can still mean more oversight
Reducing duplicate templates may release time for analysis, but it can also expose weaknesses in internal information. A board does not need every regulatory field in its pack; it does need a coherent view of capital, liquidity, underwriting, reinsurance recoverables and emerging risk. Reporting teams should identify which fields disappear externally and which data remain essential internally.
The distinction is especially relevant to small captives. Proportionality can simplify processes, yet a small legal entity can carry concentrated claims, a thin management team and material dependence on fronting or service providers. Its governance should follow its risk profile, not the volume of the regulatory return. Directors should ask whether the shorter pack improves their ability to challenge assumptions.
Implementation questions
EIOPA also points to better use of existing data, less frequent bottom-up stress testing and more top-down analysis. Those choices require clarity about responsibility. Insurers should keep a change log showing the original requirement, proposed replacement, legal status, national interpretation, system owner and first affected reporting period. This prevents a project team from deleting data before its continuing uses are understood.
Occupational-pension institutions need their own analysis. EIOPA’s joint discussion of insurance and pensions does not mean identical reporting changes apply to both. Cross-border groups should compare how supervisors implement the final framework and where overlapping requirements remain.
Preserving accountability
The authority’s percentages concern template counts, not a proportional cut to every firm’s compliance budget. Systems may still need to retain information for prudential analysis, audit, actuarial work or other regulations. A controlled transition should reconcile old and new outputs and record who approved each mapping. If supervisors make greater use of shared data, firms need reliable definitions and consistent lineage. Captive directors can ask management and the appointed actuary what information they still require to understand reserves and stress scenarios. The reporting programme should surface any loss of useful granularity before a template is retired. A simpler regulatory return is valuable when it permits more time for effective challenge and timely decisions.
Share this:
- More [2]
