Is screening quality a control worth measuring?

Insurers already ask whether an organisation screens its people. On a crime or fidelity proposal form the answer is usually one word: yes. That word is treated as a control, yet it says nothing about whether everyone who should have been screened was, whether the right checks were run for each role, how strong the evidence behind each result was, or whether exceptions were investigated. One organisation's yes cannot be compared with another's.

Other markets have moved past the one-word answer. Cyber insurers went from asking whether security controls existed to asking which specific controls were in place, such as multi-factor authentication, and how well they were implemented. Motor insurers can price on measured driving rather than on a category. In both cases a declared control became a measured one.

We think workforce screening can make the same move, and we are designing what that measure would look like: an independent review of each completed screening file against the employer's own policy, and a single organisation-wide view of how strong and consistent that control is. It would measure the employer's control, never the individual employee. It would not decide who is hired, and it would not predict who will commit fraud.

None of this is built, and no insurer has agreed to anything. We are talking to underwriters, brokers and employers now because their answers decide what gets built. If you underwrite crime, fidelity or people risk, or you own screening policy for a large workforce, we would like your view.

We are not asking whether this deserves a premium discount. We are asking whether this is a control worth measuring.

Share your view

Back to Our thinking