In November 2026, Principal Financial Group released a US employer survey showing that most benefits stayed in place even as confidence weakened, with trade reporting on the survey finding that large employers added retirement benefits more often than small and midsize firms. Principal published the index on 11 November, following fieldwork from 14 September to 4 October among 1,000 US business decision makers.
The headline sentiment measure fell to 6.02 out of 10. The reading for small and midsize businesses was 5.28, compared with 7.08 for large businesses. Principal reported that, averaged across the benefits it tested, 63% of employers made no change in 2026, while 8% added or expanded a benefit and 3% reduced or removed one. These are averages across benefit categories.
Where the size gap shows up
Trade publication 401(k) Specialist reported that large employers were three times as likely as smaller ones to add retirement benefits. That comparison describes the frequency of additions, without showing their scale in dollars or the number of workers affected. A large employer adding a service to an existing plan and a smaller employer introducing a plan face different decisions. A comparison of relative frequencies alone cannot tell a benefits committee which investment creates more value.
Principal’s aggregate figures for 2027 are also intentions. A planned enhancement can be revised when budgets are set, proposals arrive or a workforce changes. The survey is most useful as a prompt to check where peer employers are considering investment.
A fair comparison for employers
For US benefits teams, start with peers that have a similar workforce and an existing plan of comparable maturity. Break the discussion into access, contributions and advice. One employer may need to make enrollment easier; another may find that employees already participate but contribute irregularly; a third may have demand for help choosing a retirement date. The right response and the measures of success differ in each case.
Smaller employers could ask their adviser whether financial education or individual guidance can be offered through an existing service or a shared arrangement. Before buying an additional service, ask who pays for it, whether employees can reach an adviser without going through HR, and what the employer will learn about usage. Aggregate measures should be enough for oversight. Employees should be able to use the service without their employer seeing individual financial questions or account details.
What providers should be asked to show
Insurers, recordkeepers and advisers can make comparisons more useful by quoting implementation and ongoing charges separately. Proposals should show how long setup takes, which payroll systems are supported and how workers without regular access to a company computer can use the service. A sponsor can ask for examples of enrollment materials and reports before signing. That makes it easier to spot administrative work that would otherwise fall back to a small benefits team.
For multinationals, the same approach can be used across countries, but the US figures should stay in their local context. A global team can compare what employees need help with and what an employer can provide. It should assess those questions against local statutory retirement provision, existing occupational coverage and the cost of local advice.
A useful next step is to identify one retirement outcome to improve in 2027, establish the baseline and ask providers to price a small change against it. For example, if newer employees rarely complete enrollment, track completion after changing the onboarding process before adding a broader financial wellness package. That gives a committee evidence from its own workforce when the next budget decision comes around.
Sources
Principal Financial Well-Being Index release
401(k) Specialist — Employer size and retirement benefits
Share this:
- More [2]
