Editorial & Advertiser Disclosure Global Banking And Finance Review is an independent publisher which offers News, information, Analysis, Opinion, Press Releases, Reviews, Research reports covering various economies, industries, products, services and companies. The content available on globalbankingandfinance.com is sourced by a mixture of different methods which is not limited to content produced and supplied by various staff writers, journalists, freelancers, individuals, organizations, companies, PR agencies etc. The information available on this website is purely for educational and informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any of the information provided at globalbankingandfinance.com with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Globalbankingandfinance.com also links to various third party websites and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of the information provided by third party websites.
Links from various articles on our site to third party websites are a mixture of non-sponsored links and sponsored links. Only a very small fraction of the links which point to external websites are affiliate links. Some of the links which you may click on our website may link to various products and services from our partners who may compensate us if you buy a service or product or fill a form or install an app. This will not incur additional cost to you. For avoidance of any doubts and to make it easier, you may consider any links to external websites as sponsored links. Please note that some of the services or products which we talk about carry a high level of risk and may not be suitable for everyone. These may be complex services or products and we request the readers to consider this purely from an educational standpoint. The information provided on this website is general in nature. Global Banking & Finance Review expressly disclaims any liability without any limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of such information.


  • Research highlights gap between employers and employees on the value of benefits across group risk
  • 74% of employers* believe staff would rather have the cash than life insurance and 73% believe staff don’t value life insurance
  • But 66%** of employees would rather have insurance than the cash and 80% regard life cover as an important benefit 

Employees value the group risk benefits they are offered more than employers believe highlighting a growing perception gap and exposing myths about benefits, new research* from MetLife shows.

Its study found 74% of employers* believe staff would rather than have the cash than life insurance and 73% believe employees do not value life insurance despite the money invested in providing life cover.

However the research among employees** shows two-thirds (66%) would take life insurance instead of the cash and 80% regard it as an important benefit to have.

The exclusive study found 74% of employers do not communicate the benefits of Group Income Protection for fear that it will encourage staff to take time off if they are aware they have this provision in place.  However more than half of employees (55%) say they would still be concerned about taking extended time off work if they had Group Income Protection demonstrating an underlying breakdown of communication between employers and employees as to the true benefit of Group Income Protection cover.

The study found employers are even confused about the benefits of the packages they provide – 80% of employers questioned said they regard Income Protection as an important benefit to protect their cashflow despite concerns about it potentially encouraging absenteeism.

When employers were questioned on why this might be the case, 82% admitted to having a lack of expertise with the product, with 79% also blaming a lack of time for not implementing it properly.  A further 71% of employers cited both cost and a lack of resources as a reason for why Group Income protection wasn’t being properly promoted.

Tom Gaynor, Employee Benefits Director at MetLife UK said: “There is a huge gulf between what employers and employees think about benefits and a lack of understanding on both sides on the value of employee benefits.

“Neither side should lose sight of the central role they play in the working life When you consider the central role they play as a recruitment and retention tool. of today. Employers should take time to ensure the benefits package they are offering is one that resonates with their employees, and staff members should ensure they benefit as much as possible from what is on offer in their own specific workplace.”

MetLife’s research additionally shows gym memberships are the benefit most understood by staff, with 74% saying they have a good level of knowledge about the product, with Private Medical Insurance (PMI) coming in second, with 60% of employees saying they have a good level of understanding of this benefit.

MetLife’s own ProActive Protection Group Income Protection (‘GIP’) policy takes a proactive approach to preventing absences and helping employees who are unwell to return to work.  It aims to understand employee health issues before they become serious problems and provide support to enable employees to return to work more quickly.

Employees can access a range of health and wellbeing information and other support services via MetLife’s Wellbeing Hub and use the Employee Health Gateway to calculate their own ‘Health Age’ and receive personalised health and wellness information. There is also a comprehensive 24×7 employee assistance programme providing practical life management support, guidance on health issues and counselling services, including if necessary access to five face – to- face counselling sessions.