Multinational clients are changing how they approach insurance programmes as they respond to a more complex and less predictable global risk environment.
Speaking to Insurance Business at the Axco Global Insurance Summit, Jillian Connell (pictured), senior vice president and Northeast team leader, global solutions at Lockton, said rising regulatory pressure, shifting geopolitical risk and increasing operational complexity are driving a more hands-on and informed approach.
“What we’ve seen is the demand for more transparency,” she said, as clients look for a clearer understanding of how programmes perform when tested. “It’s no longer trust this structure. It’s now walk me through how this actually works.”
That shift is also changing how programmes are designed, with clients becoming more involved in shaping outcomes rather than deferring entirely to brokers.
“They’re not just saying you tell me what you think is best,” she said. “They’re like, this is what I need and this is what I’m looking for,” a change that is reshaping the broker role.
As a result, brokers are moving from programme designers to facilitators and translators of complex structures, reflecting a more collaborative dynamic between client and adviser.
“It’s causing the broker to really be a change navigator,” Connell said.
As risk environments become harder to predict, clients are placing greater emphasis on how programmes respond when claims arise, with certainty becoming a key priority.
“Clients are definitely prioritizing claim certainty over program efficiency now,” Connell said.
That shift reflects growing concern over how policies perform across jurisdictions, particularly where local regulation, tax requirements and claims processes can affect outcomes.
“They want to know will my local entity get paid, how quickly, and will that claim payment be in compliance with local regulation,” she said.
Programmes built primarily for efficiency, such as those relying more heavily on centralised structures, may not always deliver consistent results when tested, prompting more explicit conversations around trade-offs.
Those discussions increasingly focus on where coverage sits, how risks are localised, and how gaps are managed across master and local policies, rather than assuming a single structure can meet all objectives.
Connell said the pace of regulatory and geopolitical change means programmes can no longer be treated as static structures.
“It’s no longer the let’s meet once or twice a year to talk about the design,” she said, with clients instead expecting ongoing monitoring as brokers track both changes in global footprint and shifts in local regulatory environments that may affect coverage.
That shift is contributing to a more realistic understanding of how global programmes function.
“I don’t think clients are falling out of love with global programs,” Connell said. “I think they’re just being more realistic about the limitations.”
That realism extends to persistent misconceptions, particularly around compliance.
“I think the biggest misconception is that if you master a global program, it’s in compliance,” she said, pointing to the need for varying levels of localisation depending on jurisdictional requirements.
“There’s a guarantee there will be gaps in the program,” Connell said.
Rather than avoiding those issues, clients are increasingly focused on identifying and managing them early, with clearer expectations around how programmes will respond when claims occur.
The emphasis is shifting away from theoretical design towards performance, with clients seeking greater certainty not only in structure, but in how coverage is delivered in practice.
