Why Higher Cost, Broader Coverage and More Choice Do Not Automatically Create a Better Benefits Portfolio
The Management Problem
An organisation enters its annual benefits renewal cycle. Medical premiums are rising, vendors are seeking higher fees, employees want greater flexibility, and leadership is understandably reluctant to remove programmes that may matter for attraction, retention or employee security. After negotiation, redesign and perhaps the introduction of additional choice, the final benefits budget is higher than the year before.
The immediate financial question is straightforward: how much more will the organisation spend? The more important management question is whether that additional expenditure is creating additional value.
Sometimes it clearly is. Higher expenditure may strengthen medical protection, improve retirement security, remove an important exclusion, expand access to care or fund a service employees could not easily obtain independently. But a higher budget can also mean something less visible. The organisation may simply be paying more to preserve broadly the same level of protection because medical prices, treatment costs, insurance premiums or utilisation have increased.
Elsewhere in the portfolio, new benefits may be introduced while older programmes remain unchallenged. Choice may increase while navigation becomes harder. Vendors may perform adequately in isolation while collectively creating duplication. A highly utilised programme may not necessarily produce a better outcome, while another programme may provide important protection despite being rarely used.
Benefits expenditure and benefits value can therefore rise together without rising at the same rate.
This edition uses Benefits Portfolio Value as a RewardEdge practitioner concept to describe the extent to which an organisation’s benefits investment creates an appropriate combination of protection, workforce relevance, practical access, usability and sustainable organisational value for the cost incurred.
The concept does not imply that every benefit requires a direct financial return, nor that employee preference should determine every design decision. Insurance frequently exists precisely to protect against low-frequency, high-consequence events. Statutory requirements, workforce risk, affordability and organisational resilience can therefore justify programmes that would perform poorly against a simplistic utilisation or popularity measure.
The more disciplined management question is:
For each material benefits investment, can the organisation explain what value it is intended to create, for whom, how that value can be realised, and what evidence would justify continuing to fund it?
Once that question is asked consistently, benefits management becomes more than an annual renewal exercise. It becomes a portfolio-governance discipline.
Research and Validation Approach
This edition uses a focused narrative synthesis rather than a systematic review. The evidence base combines current global medical-cost forecasts, multinational employer surveys, global employee-attitude research, peer-reviewed research on flexible benefits and benefit satisfaction, and US administrative-data research examining non-wage benefits and labour-market outcomes.
These evidence streams answer different questions. Medical-trend research tells us about projected cost pressure, not employee value. Employee surveys tell us about reported needs, preferences and experiences, but do not necessarily establish enterprise return. Employer surveys reveal priorities and governance practices, although they generally do not establish that those practices caused better organisational outcomes. Academic studies can examine narrower relationships more rigorously, but geography, research design and population limit how far individual findings should be generalised.
The evidence therefore provides several building blocks rather than one universal formula for benefits value.
The Benefits Portfolio Value concept and Benefits Portfolio Value Test introduced in this edition are RewardEdge practitioner interpretations developed to connect those building blocks. They are not academically validated models, actuarial standards, accounting standards or legal tests.
Cost Pressure: Paying More Can Mean Standing Still
The immediate pressure is particularly visible in employer-sponsored healthcare.
Aon’s 2026 Global Medical Trend Rates Report forecasts an average global medical trend rate of 9.8% for 2026, the first forecast below 10% in three years, with estimates covering more than 100 countries and locations. For Asia Pacific, Aon forecasts an average rate of 11.3%. These figures represent expected medical-plan cost trends. They are not realised increases for every employer and should not be interpreted as equivalent increases in benefit generosity. [1]
Mercer Marsh Benefits reaches a related conclusion through a different research design. Its Health Trends 2026 research surveyed 268 insurers across 67 markets, excluding the United States, during June and July 2025. Mercer reports projected medical trend remaining in double digits across most regions and identifies medical inflation, utilisation, treatment mix and regulatory changes among the drivers. [2]
Because the methodologies differ, the two forecasts should not be combined as though they measure precisely the same thing. What they do support is a strategically important distinction:
Cost Growth ≠ Benefit Generosity.
An employer can spend materially more while employees continue to receive broadly similar coverage. In such a case, the organisation’s expenditure has increased primarily because external costs have increased, not because employees have received proportionately greater protection, access or choice.
That distinction should change the annual conversation between Finance and Reward. When benefits expenditure rises, leaders need to understand how much of the increase buys something better and how much simply buys the ability to preserve what already exists.
Without that separation, rising spend can easily be mistaken for rising value.
Value Pressure: Cost Containment Is Only Part of the Problem
Employer research suggests that organisations increasingly recognise this tension.
WTW’s 2025 Benefits Trends Survey generated more than 5,500 organisational responses across more than 105 markets, representing employers with more than 44 million employees. The research covers planned spending, programme effectiveness, communication, technology, financial management and vendor management, and explicitly frames the challenge as delivering value in a cost-constrained environment. [3]
Aon’s 2025 Global Benefits Trends Study provides a complementary multinational perspective. The research received 518 completed responses from benefits professionals across 45 countries, each responsible for employees in more than one country. Cost management emerged as the leading strategic priority, while ensuring that employees highly value their benefits entered the top three. [4]
Together, these findings illustrate why benefits optimisation cannot be reduced to either cost containment or employee satisfaction.
An organisation may lower expenditure by transferring more financial exposure to employees, but that can weaken affordability or protection. It may increase perceived value by adding choice, yet simultaneously increase administration and communication complexity. It may improve employee experience while leaving duplicate vendors and fragmented data untouched. It may even negotiate an excellent renewal price for a programme whose original purpose is no longer strategically important.
The real challenge is therefore not simply how to spend less or how to offer more. It is how to determine which benefits deserve continued investment, what kind of value each is expected to create and whether the portfolio remains economically sustainable as a whole.
That requires greater precision about what organisations mean by value.
The Critical Distinction
Benefits discussions often become confused because several different concepts are treated as if they were one measure of success.
Cost tells us what the organisation pays, but not whether the programme has become more generous. Coverage tells us what the plan promises, but not whether employees can obtain the service easily. Access tells us whether a benefit is practically available, but not whether employees will use it appropriately. Utilisation confirms that a service was used, but does not necessarily establish whether that use produced a better outcome or represented efficient expenditure. Employee preference tells us what people say they value, but does not establish whether a programme provides appropriate protection against significant risk.
Enterprise value asks a further question again: does the programme support an outcome the employer has a legitimate reason to fund?
The sequence therefore matters:
Cost ≠ Coverage ≠ Access ≠ Use ≠ Outcome ≠ Employee-Perceived Value ≠ Enterprise Value.
This distinction is particularly important in healthcare. Mercer Marsh Benefits reports that 76% of insurers in its Health Trends 2026 survey were concerned that inefficient and wasteful care contributes to unaffordability. That is an insurer-perception finding, not evidence that high utilisation itself is wasteful. It does, however, demonstrate why utilisation volume cannot serve as a sufficient proxy for value. [2]
The same logic applies in reverse. Very low utilisation of life insurance does not make the programme worthless, just as low utilisation of catastrophic medical protection may simply mean that the insured event did not occur during the measurement period.
Measurement therefore has to return to purpose.
Choice and Personalisation: More Can Be Better, but More Is Not Free
The case for greater employee choice is understandable. Workforces contain people at different income levels, life stages, family circumstances and locations, which means a standard package can create very different practical value for different people.
WTW’s 2024 Global Benefits Attitudes Survey covered 45,000 employees working for medium and large private-sector organisations across 29 countries and territories. Employees reporting high levels of benefits choice were substantially more likely to say that their package met their needs than employees reporting no choice. In Asia Pacific, the comparison was 79% versus 42%; in EMEA it was 70% versus 34%. These are cross-sectional associations and do not demonstrate that increasing choice itself caused the difference. [5]
The same research highlights the corresponding management challenge: additional choice introduces additional administration, communication, regulatory and management complexity. [5]
Academic research provides another reason for caution. De la Torre-Ruiz, Vidal-Salazar and Cordón-Pozo studied 874 employees in Spanish firms and found that relationships between benefit flexibility and dimensions of benefit satisfaction varied according to individual personality characteristics. The reported effects were small, the research was survey-based and the population was geographically limited to Spain. It therefore should not be interpreted as a universal causal model. Its narrower implication is that employees do not necessarily respond uniformly to the same benefits architecture. [7]
This leads to a more disciplined design principle:
Personalisation should increase relevance faster than it increases complexity.
If additional flexibility creates meaningful employee value, the complexity may be justified. If it produces only marginal additional relevance while materially increasing cost, administration and decision burden, the portfolio may be becoming more sophisticated without becoming more valuable.
Segmentation: Equal Employer Cost Does Not Mean Equal Employee Value
The portfolio problem becomes more complicated because equal employer expenditure does not necessarily create equal employee value.
Ouimet and Tate’s NBER working paper uses US administrative data on employer-provided health insurance, retirement and leave benefits. The authors document substantial variation in non-wage benefits between firms and report that more generous benefits are associated with lower turnover, particularly among lower-wage workers, for whom benefits represent a larger share of total compensation. The paper is US-specific and remains an NBER working paper, so it should not be presented as settled global evidence that increasing benefits will reduce turnover in every workforce. [8]
Its relevance to benefits design is nevertheless important. A benefit representing a relatively small component of total compensation for one employee may provide significant economic security for another. The same medical deductible can impose very different practical burdens at different income levels. Dependent coverage can have very different value depending on family circumstances. Retirement provision may have different relevance across career stages. A programme that fills an important protection gap in one country may duplicate statutory provision in another.
The appropriate response is therefore not unlimited segmentation. It is deliberate segmentation.
Differentiation should occur where meaningful differences in workforce need, protection, geography or organisational purpose justify the added governance complexity.
This is where the evidence can be translated into a practical management discipline.
The Benefits Portfolio Value Test
The following is a RewardEdge practitioner framework. It is not an academic, actuarial, accounting or legal standard. Its purpose is to help organisations determine whether material benefits expenditure continues to create a defensible combination of employee value, protection and economic sustainability.
1. Purpose and Protection
Diagnostic Question What problem is this benefit intended to solve?
Every material benefit should have an identifiable reason for existing. That purpose may be risk protection, healthcare access, retirement security, statutory compliance, workforce participation, attraction, retention or another defined organisational objective.
Where the purpose becomes unclear, renewal can become the default simply because the programme existed previously.
Purpose should therefore come before utilisation, satisfaction and cost optimisation. A protection benefit and a lifestyle benefit should not be expected to demonstrate value through identical evidence.
2. Workforce Relevance
Diagnostic Question For which employees does this benefit create meaningful value?
A globally consistent benefit is not automatically globally relevant. Employee income, age, family structure, statutory provision, taxation, healthcare infrastructure and local market practice can materially change the value produced by the same programme.
The objective is not endless personalisation. It is to identify where standardisation produces materially different outcomes and determine whether segmentation creates enough additional value to justify the complexity.
3. Access and Usability
Diagnostic Question Can employees practically obtain the benefit when they need it?
Coverage is only one component of value. Narrow provider networks, slow approvals, difficult claims processes, limited local availability, inaccessible technology or unclear eligibility can reduce practical value without changing the contractual wording of a plan.
Vendor performance is therefore part of benefits design, not merely a procurement matter. A strong benefit delivered through a poor employee journey can lose considerable value between policy design and actual use.
4. Choice and Complexity
Diagnostic Question Does additional choice create enough additional relevance to justify the complexity it introduces?
WTW’s evidence shows a strong association between greater benefits choice and employees reporting that their benefits meet their needs. The same research also identifies additional administration, communication and regulatory complexity. [5]
The design question is therefore not whether choice is inherently good or bad. It is whether each additional layer of flexibility creates enough value to justify the additional operating burden.
5. Understanding and Navigation
Diagnostic Question Do employees understand what they have, when it matters and how to use it?
Communication cannot make a fundamentally weak benefit valuable. Poor communication and difficult navigation can, however, prevent employees from realising the value of a well-designed programme.
Mercer’s Health on Demand 2025 research captures the views of 18,384 adults across 17 markets and reports employers as the most trusted source for affordable, quality healthcare. This is an employee-perception finding rather than evidence that employer-sponsored healthcare necessarily produces superior clinical outcomes. [6]
The organisational implication is nevertheless meaningful. When employers choose, fund and communicate benefits, they are also designing the route through which employees are expected to access them.
6. Cost and Sustainability
Diagnostic Question Can the organisation sustain this benefit without crowding out more valuable uses of Reward expenditure?
Sustainability belongs alongside generosity. A programme that becomes economically unsustainable eventually creates pressure for abrupt redesign, cost transfer or removal.
The analysis should therefore identify what is actually driving expenditure. Richer coverage, medical inflation, increased utilisation, treatment innovation, demographic change, claims experience, administrative inefficiency and vendor pricing are different problems requiring different responses.
Cost containment without diagnosis can unnecessarily destroy value. Generosity without sustainability can merely defer the problem.
7. Outcome Evidence
Diagnostic Question What evidence should make leadership conclude that this benefit is working?
The answer depends on purpose. A protection benefit may be assessed through adequacy and exposure rather than frequent use. A health-navigation programme may require evidence on access, experience and appropriate care. A flexible-benefits programme may require evidence on employee choice, relevance, administrative burden and understanding.
Where benefits are intended to influence attraction, retention or another workforce outcome, leaders should remember that those outcomes have multiple causes. Benefits data can contribute to the evidence without proving that the benefit alone created the result.
A portfolio becomes difficult to govern when the evidence required to justify continued investment has never been defined.
8. Governance and Vendor Performance
Diagnostic Question Who owns the continuing decision that this benefit still deserves its place in the portfolio?
Benefits governance should not end when a programme is launched or a contract is signed.
Aon’s 2025 Global Benefits Trends Study illustrates the implementation challenge. Among surveyed organisations with a documented global benefits strategy, only 6% reported full adherence across markets, while 12% of respondents said their governance structure fully met its objectives. These are self-reported findings rather than independently audited measures of governance quality. [4]
They nevertheless reinforce an important principle:
A Benefits Strategy Can Be Well Designed and Still Lose Value Through Weak Execution.
Someone therefore needs continuing accountability for purpose, cost, employee experience, vendor performance, local exceptions and the renewal decision.
The Boundary Condition: Utilisation Is Not Value
A benefits-value framework becomes dangerous when measurement loses sight of purpose.
Consider life insurance. If very few employees make a claim during a year, a utilisation-only analysis might describe the programme as poorly used. Yet protection existed for every covered employee throughout the year. The same principle applies to disability insurance, catastrophic medical cover, emergency assistance and other forms of protection whose value may exist before the insured event ever occurs.
The reverse is equally important. High utilisation is not automatically proof of high value. It may reflect meaningful access to a needed service, but it can also reflect poor underlying health, weak prevention, inefficient care or inappropriate use.
Three distinctions therefore need to remain intact:
Low Utilisation ≠ Low Value High Utilisation ≠ High Value Popularity ≠ Protection Value
The correct measure depends on what the benefit was designed to accomplish.
The Total Reward Implication
Once benefits are treated as a portfolio, the question naturally extends beyond benefits themselves.
An organisation can provide an excellent benefits package and still have a weak Total Reward proposition if base pay is perceived as unfair, salary progression lacks credibility or employees cannot understand how different elements of Reward fit together. Benefits should therefore complement a sound Reward architecture rather than being expected to compensate for unresolved pay problems.
Benefits also consume scarce Reward resources. Every additional unit of expenditure committed to one programme cannot simultaneously be allocated to another benefit, base salary, retirement provision, variable pay or another workforce investment.
This creates a portfolio-allocation question that often remains hidden when programmes are reviewed one contract at a time.
The question is not simply:
Is this benefit valuable?
It is also:
Is this the strongest defensible use of the next unit of Reward spend?
There is no universal answer because workforce needs, statutory systems, labour markets, organisational strategy and risk exposure differ. The governance requirement is that the trade-off is explicit.
Job architecture enters more selectively. Where benefit eligibility differs by grade, level or employee category, those distinctions should have a defensible policy rationale. Market practice, mobility requirements, employment conditions or statutory treatment may justify variation.
However:
Benefit Generosity ≠ Job Value.
An expensive benefit does not make the underlying job larger.
What the Evidence Supports, and What It Does Not
Taken together, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that employer-sponsored healthcare remains under substantial cost pressure. Aon forecasts a 9.8% global average medical trend rate for 2026, while Mercer Marsh Benefits reports projected double-digit medical trend across most regions in its insurer survey. These forecasts use different methodologies and should not be interpreted as realised employer cost increases or identical measures. [1][2]
Large employer surveys also support the conclusion that organisations are attempting to balance cost management with employee value. WTW’s 2025 research generated more than 5,500 organisational responses across more than 105 markets, while Aon’s study included 518 multinational benefits professionals from 45 countries. These are descriptive surveys, not causal studies. [3][4]
WTW’s employee research supports a strong association between greater benefits choice and employees reporting that their package meets their needs. It does not establish that increasing choice will necessarily cause higher satisfaction, retention or organisational performance. [5]
The Spanish research involving 874 employees similarly supports the proposition that employees may respond differently to flexible benefits, although its effects were small and its single-country, survey-based design limits wider generalisation. [7]
The Ouimet and Tate working paper provides US evidence that non-wage benefits are relevant to worker-firm matching and turnover and may matter particularly for lower-wage employees. It does not establish that every increase in benefits generosity will reduce turnover across every labour market. [8]
More broadly, the literature does not establish one universal benefits ROI methodology. It does not support evaluating every benefit through utilisation, treating employee satisfaction as equivalent to enterprise value or assuming that greater flexibility is always superior.
The Benefits Portfolio Value concept and Benefits Portfolio Value Test are therefore not presented as validated scientific models. They are RewardEdge practitioner devices intended to help leaders combine evidence that is often considered separately.
Why Good Benefits Strategy Can Still Fail
The principal barriers are often less about lack of information than fragmentation of ownership.
Finance sees expenditure. HR hears employee sentiment. Insurers see claims. Vendors see their own utilisation and service metrics. Procurement sees contracts. None of these perspectives alone establishes whether the complete portfolio creates sufficient value for the investment.
Legacy renewal makes the problem harder. Removing or redesigning a benefit creates a visible employee-relations decision, while renewal often feels administratively easier. Over time, programmes can survive because nobody has revisited their original purpose.
Vendor fragmentation adds another layer. Medical, wellbeing, employee assistance, financial wellbeing, retirement, recognition and navigation providers can each perform adequately in isolation while collectively creating overlap, fragmented data or inconsistent employee journeys.
Flexible design can also outpace governance. Each additional option may improve relevance for some employees while simultaneously increasing administration, technology, eligibility, communication and regulatory requirements.
For multinationals, this is compounded by the tension between global consistency and local relevance. Excessive centralisation can make programmes inappropriate for local conditions, while excessive localisation can undermine governance and scale.
The result is often not a lack of metrics. It is a lack of logic connecting those metrics to the purpose of each benefit.
Practical Strategies
A stronger approach begins before renewal. Organisations should first restate why every significant programme exists. Where leadership cannot articulate the protection, workforce need or organisational objective being funded, the programme should move into strategic review rather than automatic renewal.
Protection should then be separated from preference. Statutory and risk-protection programmes should not be evaluated through the same measures as lifestyle, choice or employee-experience benefits.
Where utilisation is weak, organisations should investigate friction before concluding that demand is absent. Communication, eligibility, access, technology, provider availability or claims processes may be suppressing use.
Segmentation should be applied selectively, where geography, workforce need or employee circumstance materially changes value. The fact that technology makes personalisation possible does not itself justify greater complexity.
Vendor management should also move beyond individual contracts. Leadership should examine the portfolio collectively to identify duplication, conflicting employee journeys, fragmented data and overlapping objectives.
Finally, governance must permit genuine decisions. Benefits should be capable of being retained, redesigned, consolidated or retired.
If every portfolio review ends in renewal, the organisation is administering benefits rather than governing them.
Implementation in the Operating Model
A stronger benefits operating model connects the full chain of value:
Workforce Need ↓ Purpose and Protection ↓ Benefit Design ↓ Funding ↓ Access and Navigation ↓ Appropriate Use ↓ Outcome Evidence ↓ Vendor Performance ↓ Portfolio Decision
Reward or Benefits should own the overall portfolio architecture rather than merely individual programmes. Finance should challenge affordability, cost drivers, sustainability and opportunity cost. Procurement should strengthen commercial discipline without reducing the question to price. Risk should identify material protection gaps. Local HR should test whether global principles work in local employment conditions. People Analytics can connect workforce segments, employee behaviour and programme evidence without overstating causality.
Business leadership ultimately needs to decide what the organisation is trying to protect, what employee outcomes it has a legitimate reason to support and what level of expenditure it is prepared to sustain.
For multinational organisations, global governance should define principles, minimum protections, decision rights and evidence requirements, while local markets retain sufficient discretion to respond to taxation, statutory systems, healthcare infrastructure and workforce needs.
The goal is neither maximum centralisation nor unrestricted localisation.
It is governed variation.
Five Leadership Actions
1. Separate Price Increase From Value Increase
When the benefits budget rises, leadership reporting should distinguish external cost inflation from richer coverage, stronger protection or improved access. Paying 10% more to preserve the existing programme is strategically different from investing 10% more to strengthen it.
2. Give Every Material Benefit a Clear Purpose
State whether each significant programme exists for protection, compliance, healthcare access, retirement security, attraction, retention, workforce participation or another defined objective. That purpose should determine how its value is evaluated.
3. Measure the Path to Value
Examine cost, access, employee understanding, service friction, appropriate utilisation, protection adequacy and outcome evidence as a connected chain rather than relying on one final metric.
4. Make Portfolio Trade-Offs Explicit
Ask why the next unit of Reward expenditure should be invested in one benefit rather than another benefit, base pay, retirement provision, variable pay or another workforce priority. The relevant question is not merely whether a programme creates value, but whether it creates enough value relative to available alternatives.
5. Stop Treating Renewal as Proof of Value
Renewal proves that a programme continued. It does not establish that the programme remains strategically necessary, economically sustainable or relevant to the workforce. A serious portfolio review must be capable of producing a retain, redesign, consolidate or retire decision.
The RewardEdge Perspective
Benefits have traditionally been easier to describe than to evaluate.
A policy document explains what employees are entitled to receive. Renewal data shows what the organisation pays. Claims data records what was used. Employee surveys tell leaders what people say they value. Vendor dashboards report whether service commitments were achieved.
Every one of those perspectives is useful, but none answers the complete question.
The governance challenge is to connect them around the purpose of the benefit.
A strong benefits portfolio can protect employees against financial and health risks, improve access to services, strengthen workforce security, support participation and improve the employment proposition. In some circumstances, it may also contribute to attraction, retention or organisational resilience.
Those outcomes deserve investment.
They do not deserve investment without scrutiny.
The role of Reward is therefore neither to maximise the number of benefits nor to minimise the benefits budget. It is to create the strongest defensible portfolio within the organisation’s workforce, risk and economic context.
That requires rejecting two equally weak assumptions:
High spend ≠ high value.
High cost ≠ automatic removal.
A defensible portfolio instead needs to demonstrate what the expenditure protects, whose needs it serves, whether employees can realise the intended value, what the programme costs to sustain and what evidence would cause leadership to retain, redesign or discontinue it.
The RewardEdge Governing Principle
A benefits portfolio is not valuable because it is expensive, broad or popular. It is valuable when the protection, relevance and access it creates can justify the cost the organisation is asked to sustain.
A Closing Question
Imagine that your organisation’s benefits budget rises materially at the next renewal.
Before approving the increase, the CFO asks:
What additional protection are employees receiving?
Which workforce needs are being served better?
Where has practical access improved?
What evidence shows that the programmes are achieving their intended purpose?
Which benefits would we still choose if we were designing the portfolio from zero today?
Could your organisation answer those questions benefit by benefit?
If yes, it may genuinely be governing a benefits portfolio around value rather than simply administering a collection of programmes.
If not, rising expenditure may be telling leadership more about healthcare inflation, legacy commitments and organisational inertia than about the additional value employees are receiving.
The question is not how many benefits you offer. It is how much defensible value the portfolio creates for the cost the organisation must sustain.
Subscribe to Reward Intelligence Global for evidence-led analysis on compensation, benefits, Reward strategy, job architecture, workforce economics and the governance decisions that shape organisational value.
RewardEdge Consulting supports organisations reviewing global benefits strategy, Total Reward, benefits governance, portfolio optimisation and workforce-cost effectiveness across the UAE, Saudi Arabia and global markets.
Sources and Further Reading
[1] Aon. (2025). The Global Medical Trend Rates Report 2026. Provides estimated 2026 medical-trend forecasts for more than 100 countries and locations and examines drivers of employer-sponsored medical-plan costs.
[2] Mercer Marsh Benefits. (2025). Health Trends 2026: Balancing Cost Control With Benefits Optimisation. Based on a survey of 268 insurers across 67 markets, excluding the United States, fielded during June and July 2025.
[3] WTW. (2025). 2025 Benefits Trends Survey. Based on more than 5,500 organisational responses across more than 105 markets, representing employers with more than 44 million employees.
[4] Aon. (2025). Global Benefits Trends Study 2025. Based on 518 completed responses from multinational benefits professionals across 45 countries.
[5] WTW. (2024). Understanding the Employee Voice: 2024 Global Benefits Attitudes Survey. Based on 45,000 employees across 29 countries and territories.
[6] Mercer Marsh Benefits. (2025). Health on Demand 2025: Smarter Benefits, Stronger Workforce. Captures the views of 18,384 adults across 17 markets.
[7] de la Torre-Ruiz, J. M., Vidal-Salazar, M. D. and Cordón-Pozo, E. (2017). Benefit Flexibility and Benefit Satisfaction: Does Employee’s Personality Matter? Personnel Review, 46(1), 2–16. Survey research involving 874 employees in Spanish firms. DOI: 10.1108/PR-04-2015-0082.
[8] Ouimet, P. and Tate, G. (2023). Firms with Benefits? Nonwage Compensation and Implications for Firms and Labor Markets. NBER Working Paper No. 31463. Uses US administrative data on health insurance, retirement and leave benefits.
This block architecture is the one I would use for publication: clear visual sections, substantial paragraphs within each section, a consistent eight-part framework, a distinct evidence-limitations block, and a visibly separate leadership/action/conclusion sequence. It gives the reader scanning points without sacrificing the executive narrative.
