Data Privacy

Digital transformation doesn’t stop creating surprise, admiration, innovation … but also deception and divide. In 2023, Gen AI has taken the lead regarding use, high speed engagement, discovery, and implementation.

How Tech Executives Rank Other C-suite Leaders’ Digital Skills and Mindset

They give the highest marks for proficiency and mindset (the ability to imagine digital solutions)
to chief marketing, strategy and operations officers and CEOs among non-tech roles – and rank legal
and HR leaders lowest, on average. Several potential reasons could explain this « gap »:

one of it probably being the traditionally less developed business partnership among CTO/CIO functions and HR and especially Legal departments as these functions either work with robust legacy or with low or no IT solutions to produce their output;
another root cause of underestimated « mindset » and « proficiency » might be stronger compliance requirements usually existing for HR and Legal functions, requirements natively less open for technical disruption;
finally, both functions are frequently « (dis)qualified » by IT management as being too « open to shadow IT » solutions.

Three-Quarters of CEOs Have Tried ChatGPT Since Its Launch

A third of chief executives who have used the tool for work used it for writing and communication. More than 20% have employed it for general research, followed by market research and presentations (13% each).

Definitely a great start compared to significantly lower C-level adoption of previous IT innovations and disruptions. However, given the extremely broad potential among all other functions within an organization, from front lines to back office and all support functions, it’s critical to involve executives and boards in all inititiatives identified or to be identified as critical and potentially disruptive and/or transformative for the organizations future.

Otherwise, the risk to underestimate value and underallocate investments could be huge (e.g. past experience with social network, IoT, data science … too often considered being « for their kids or for freaks » than for their organizations and business).

As Executives Laud AI, Consumers in the U.K., Canada and U.S. Express Fear

More than half of consumers in all three countries chose “complex” and “threatening” to describe AI, while “effective” was the least-selected word.

Not really a surprise as Big Tech is considered being a cunsumer unfriendly « oligopoly » after the skyrocketing of their market capitalization since Covid.

Fastly growing data privacy issues and cyber security incidents naturally add concerns regarding this technological disruption mainly built on Big Data and AI usage most consumers didn’t imagine prior to ChatGPT going mainstream.

How to Cope With Global Digital Divides

At least four digital infrastructures are emerging as ideology splits the world — in China, the U.S., the EU, and Russia. After three decades of global consistency for multinational companies, this shift has radical implications for business.

The number of national policies restricting data flows or access more than doubled from 2017 to 2021. With AI regulation following the same path, hoping this divided world will “return to normal” is futile. And a purely tactical C-suite response to one digital policy at a time is too costly.

To reduce risks to growth, executive leaders should instead view geopolitical and digital tensions strategically while reacting to measures in specific jurisdictions. That means:

Adjusting local enterprise technology architectures, operating models and corporate structures as needed
Exiting the market as the final resort if following the steps outlined in Figure 1 does not sufficiently mitigate operational risks

Assess Country Dependency Risk — Including Sovereign Data and Digital Strategies

Executive leaders should first determine the business impact of geopolitical and digital risks in a country — including regulations — and consider appropriate mitigating steps. For example, some
multinational enterprises that continued to operate in Russia after February 2022 had to adjust their technology stack when one or more of their technology suppliers left the country.

Many multinational organizations are assessing the potential for a similar problem to arise in other regions of high tension. They also now need to manage China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and India’s new Digital Personal Data Protection Act (passed in August 2023 but not yet effective) while remaining compliant with the EU’s general data protection regulation (GDPR).

Because digital technology is central to business, digital regulations affect almost everything a company does (as well as nearly all consumers and public-sector activities). Executive leaders must, therefore, take a broad view of how their enterprise uses data (see Figure 2).

Evaluate your digital risk in a country using Figure 2 as a guide. Take each element as a potential risk area you need to gauge due to one or more sovereign data and digital regulations. While this process will depend on where and how your company operates, a standardized assessment across all elements will help you make consistent, actionable changes faster at a strategic level.

Executive leaders addressing the enterprisewide impact of increasing digital regulations should:

Identify the business scenarios and outcomes that are hardest to govern because of, for example,
geographic and organizational diversity, complexity and autonomy.
Consider establishing a virtual team to govern data and analytics throughout business functions and across geographies to address one of these situations. Using this connected governance framework will involve creating a proof of concept to test the benefits, risks and impacts associated with the scenario.

new-operating-models-for-a-fractured-world Télécharger

The Geneva Association 2018 Customer Survey in 7 mature economies reveals that for half of the respondents, increased levels of trust in insurers and intermediaries would encourage additional insurance purchases, a consistent finding across all age groups. In emerging markets this share is expected to be even higher, given a widespread lack of experience with financial institutions, the relatively low presence of well-known and trusted insurer brands and a number of structural legal and regulatory shortcomings.

GA1

Against this backdrop, a comprehensive analysis of the role and nature of trust in insurance, with a focus on the retail segment, is set to offer additional important insights into how to narrow the protection gap—the difference between needed and available protection—through concerted multi-stakeholder efforts.

The analysis is based on economic definitions of trust, viewed as an ’institutional economiser’ that facilitates or even eliminates the need for various procedures of verification and proof, thereby cutting transaction costs.

In the more specific context of insurance, trust can be defined as a customer’s bet on an insurer’s future contingent actions, ranging

from paying claims
to protecting personal data
and ensuring the integrity of algorithms.

Trust is the lifeblood of insurance business, as its carriers sell contingent promises to pay, often at a distant and unspecified point in the future.

From that perspective, we can explore the implications of trust for both insurance demand and supply, i.e. its relevance to the size and nature of protection gaps. For example, trust influences behavioural biases such as customers’ propensity for excessive discounting, or in other words, an irrationally high preference for money today over money tomorrow that dampens demand for insurance. In addition, increased levels of trust lower customers’ sensitivity to the price of coverage.

GA2

Trust also has an important influence on the supply side of insurance. The cost loadings applied by insurers to account for fraud are significant and lead to higher premiums for honest customers. Enhanced insurer trust in their customers’ prospective honesty would enable

lower cost loadings,
less restrictive product specifications
and higher demand for insurance.

The potential for lower cost loadings is significant. In the U.S. alone, according to the Insurance Information Institute (2019), fraud in the property and casualty sector is estimated to cost the insurance industry more than USD 30 billion annually, about 10% of total incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses.

Another area where trust matters greatly to the supply of insurance coverage is asymmetric information. A related challenge is moral hazard, or the probability of a person exercising less care in the presence of insurance cover. In this context, however, digital technologies and modern analytics are emerging as potentially game-changing forces. Some pundits herald the end of the age of asymmetric information and argue that a proliferation of information will

counter adverse selection and moral hazard,
creating transparency (and trust) for both insurers and insureds
and aligning their respective interests.

Other experts caution that this ‘brave new world’ depends on the development of customers’ future privacy preferences.

One concrete example is the technology-enabled rise in peer-to-peer trust and the amplification of word-of-mouth. This general trend is now entering the world of insurance as affinity groups and other communities organise themselves through online platforms. In such business models, trust in incumbent insurance companies is replaced with trust in peer groups and the technology platforms that organise them. Another example is the blockchain. In insurance, some start-ups have pioneered the use of blockchain to improve efficiency, transparency and trust in unemployment, property and casualty, and travel insurance, for example. In more advanced markets, ecosystem partners can serve as another example of technology-enabled trust influencers.

These developments are set to usher in an era in which customer data will be a key source of competitive edge. Therefore, gaining and maintaining customers’ trust in how data is used and handled will be vitally important for insurers’ reputations. This also applies to the integrity and interpretability of artificial intelligence tools, given the potential for biases to be embedded in algorithms.

In spite of numerous trust deficits, insurers appear to be in a promising position to hold their own against technology platforms, which are under increasing scrutiny for dubious data handling practices. According to the Geneva Association 2018 Customer Survey, only 3% of all respondents (and 7% of the millennials) polled name technology platforms as their preferred conduits for buying insurance. Insurers’ future performance, in terms of responsible data handling and usage as well as algorithm building, will determine whether their current competitive edge is sustainable. It should not be taken for granted, as—especially in high-growth markets—the vast majority of insurance customers would at least be open to purchasing insurance from new entrants.

GA3

In order to substantiate a multi-stakeholder road map for narrowing protection gaps through fostering trust, we propose a triangle of determinants of trust in insurance.

First, considering the performance of insurers, how an insurer services a policy and settles claims is core to building or destroying trust.
Second, regarding the performance of intermediaries, it is intuitively plausible that those individuals and organisations at the frontline of the customer interface are critically important to the reputation and the level of trust placed in the insurance carrier.
And third, taking into account sociodemographic factors, most recent research finds that trust in insurance is higher among females.

This research also suggests that trust in insurance decreases with age, and insurance literacy has a strong positive influence on the level of trust in insurance.

Based on this paper’s theoretical and empirical findings, we propose the following road map for ensuring that insurance markets are optimally lubricated with trust. This road map includes 3 stakeholder groups that need to act in concert: insurers (and their intermediaries), customers, and regulators/ lawmakers.

GA4

In order for insurers and their intermediaries to bolster customer trust—and enhance their contribution to society—we recommend they do the following:

Streamline claims settlement with processes that differentiate between honest and (potentially) dishonest customers. Delayed claims settlement, which may be attributable to procedures needed for potentially fraudulent customer behaviour, causes people to lose trust in insurers and is unfair to honest customers.
Increase product transparency and simplicity, with a focus on price and value. Such efforts could include aligning incentives through technology-enabled customer engagement and utilising data and analytics for simpler and clearer underwriting procedures. This may, however, entail delicate trade-offs between efficiency and privacy.
‘Borrow’ trust: As a novel approach, insurers may partner with non-insurance companies or influencers to access new customers through the implied endorsement of a trusted brand or individual. Such partnerships are also essential to extending the business model of insurance beyond its traditional centre of gravity, which is the payment of claims.

Customers and their organisations are encouraged to undertake the following actions:

Support collective action against fraud. Insurance fraud hinders mutual trust and drives cost loadings, which are unfair to honest customers and lead to suboptimal levels of aggregate demand.
Engage with insurers who leverage personal data for the benefit of the customer. When insurers respond to adverse selection, they increase rates for everyone in order to cover their losses. This may cause low-risk customers to drop out of the company’s risk pool and forego coverage. ‘Real time’ underwriting methods and modern analytics are potential remedies to the undesirable effects of adverse selection.

Recommendations for policymakers and regulators are the following:

Protect customers. Effective customer protection is indispensable to lubricating insurance markets with trust. First, regulators should promote access to insurance through regulations that interfere with the market mechanism for rate determination or through more subtle means, such as restrictions on premium rating factors. Second, regulators should make sure that insurers have the ability to pay claims and remain solvent. This may involve timely prudential regulatory intervention.
Promote industry competition. There is a positive correlation between an insurance market’s competitiveness and levels of customer trust. In a competitive market, the cost to customers for switching from an underperforming insurance carrier to a more favourable competitor is relatively low. However, the cost of customer attrition for insurers is high. Therefore, in a competitive market, the onus is on insurers to perform well and satisfy customers.

Click here to access Geneva Association’s Research Debrief