Should Global Professional Service Firms Use Captives for Employee Benefits?

Many professional service firms already use captives for risks such as professional indemnity. Extending the captive to Employee Benefits is a strategic option to improve cost, control and insight. However, it also changes the captive’s risk profile and governance requirements.

What It Looks Like in Practice

A typical captive structure for employee benefits is organized as follows:

• Local EB policies are placed with in country insurers, meeting regulatory and tax rules.
• The local insurers cede up to 100% of the risk to the captive, often via a fronting network.
• The local insurers also manage claims administration and provide a quarterly settlement statement to the fronting network:
  
  • If the settlement balance is positive (i.e., premiums exceed claims and administrative charges), the surplus is ceded to the captive.
    
  • If the balance is negative (i.e., claims and charges exceed premiums), the captive reimburses the fronting network through the quarterly settlement.

Advantages

Risk and Challenges

Alongside these advantages, there are important challenges and risks to manage. Regulatory and compliance complexity is a central consideration, as EB sits at the intersection of insurance regulation, employment law, tax, social security and data protection. Not all countries or benefit types will be suitable for captive participation, and if the structure is poorly designed it can create regulatory problems or employee-relations issues.

Firms generally begin with exploring adding coverage to their captives for non-U.S. locations, given that the U.S. presents several challenges and complexities, including obtaining an exemption from the Department of Labor with the following core requirements for captive reinsurance of U.S. benefits under ERISA:

• No harm and ideally improvement to participant benefits
• Net participant benefit, not just employer advantage
• Equitable use of captive surplus to support the plan/participants
• Prudent, independent, and arm’s length decision making

Strong governance and stakeholder alignment are also crucial. Success depends on close cooperation between HR/Reward, Finance/Treasury, Risk and Captive Management, Legal/Tax/Compliance, and local HR and business leadership. Without that alignment, the model can stall or fail to deliver its intended value.

Adding EB increases the captive’s capital requirements and medical and disability risks can be volatile and sensitive to demographic and behavioral shifts. The Board must be comfortable with this additional exposure and how it interacts with existing captive risks.

Operational and data readiness present another potential constraint. Effective implementation requires reliable data flows from local insurers and HR systems and it increases complexity in administration, actuarial work and reporting. Weak local processes or data quality can significantly blunt the potential benefits.

Finally, perception and employee trust must be carefully managed. Poor communication can fuel concerns that “the captive” is simply a cost-cutting tool at employees’ expense. For professional services firms in particular, transparency about objectives, safeguards and reinvestment of value is essential to maintain trust.

Recommended Steps for Further Consideration

For the C suite, several steps are recommended.

• First, commission a high-level EB–captive feasibility review, mapping current EB spend, plan designs and insurers across major countries to identify which benefits and geographies are structurally and regulatorily feasible for captive participation.
  
  
• Second, align key stakeholders on objectives by clarifying whether the primary goals are cost control, volatility management, improved data and insight, greater benefit consistency, a stronger talent proposition, or a balanced combination of these and by agreeing clear success metrics such as cost trends, levels of benefit harmonization and wellbeing outcomes.
  
  
• Next, leadership should sponsor the development of a phased roadmap. This typically involves limited scope launches focusing on lines and countries aligned with global fronting networks and areas where program stability has already been demonstrated. In parallel, before expanding into more complex benefits or higher risk geographies the organization should build the necessary data and governance capabilities.
  
  
• Finally, it is important to engage the captive board and relevant external partners early in the process. Captive board members, HR leadership, risk and finance teams, and network or fronting partners should all be involved in designing the structure. Regulatory, tax and employee relations implications should be worked through upfront rather than after the fact.

Bottom Line

Bringing employee benefits into a captive can create a more efficient, insight rich and strategically aligned benefits program for global professional services firms. It is not a quick win, but if executed with strong governance and clear objectives, it can become a core pillar of both people strategy and enterprise risk and capital management.

Contact

The Professional Services Practice at Aon values your feedback. To discuss any of the topics raised in this insight, please contact Amit Bhavra or Zulqarnain Akhtar Khan.


Amit Bhavra
Managing Director
New York




Zulqarnain Akhtar Khan
Global Benefits Consulting Leader - Captives
New York

About Aon

Aon (NYSE: AON) exists to shape decisions for the better — to protect and enrich the lives of people around the world. Through actionable analytic insight, globally integrated Risk Capital and Human Capital expertise, and locally relevant solutions, our colleagues provide clients in over 120 countries with the clarity and confidence to make better risk and people decisions that help protect and grow their businesses.

Follow Aon on LinkedIn, X, Facebook and Instagram. Stay up-to-date by visiting Aon’s newsroom and sign up for news alerts here.

©2026 Aon plc. All rights reserved.

Aon is not a law firm or accounting firm and does not provide legal, financial or tax advice. Any commentary provided is based solely on Aon’s experience as insurance practitioners. We recommend that you consult with your own legal, financial and/or insurance advisors on any commentary provided herein. All descriptions, summaries or highlights of coverage described herein are for general informational purposes only and do not amend, alter or modify the actual terms and conditions of any relevant policy. Coverage is governed only by the terms and conditions of such policy. Insurance coverage in any particular case will depend upon the type of policy in effect, the terms, conditions and exclusions in any such policy, and the facts of each unique situation. No representation is made that any specific insurance coverage would apply in the circumstances outlined herein. Please refer to the individual policy forms for specific coverage details.

The information contained in this document and the statements expressed are of a general nature and are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity.

This document is not intended to address any specific situation or to provide legal, regulatory, financial, or other advice. While care has been taken in the production of this document, Aon does not warrant, represent or guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, completeness or fitness for any purpose of the document or any part of it and can accept no liability for any loss incurred in any way by any person who may rely on it. Any recipient shall be responsible for the use to which it puts this document. This document has been compiled using information available to us up to its date of publication and is subject to any qualifications made in the document.

Insurance products and services offered by Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc., Aon Risk Services Central, Inc., Aon Risk Services Northeast, Inc., Aon Risk Services Southwest, Inc., and Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Florida and their licensed affiliates.