The insurance industry is inherently global. Talent pipelines cross continents, time zones, and regulatory frameworks. Executive search operates across jurisdictions that look very different from one another in practice, even when firms' stated values remain consistent. However, most insurers' LGBTQIA+ inclusion policies were written with a single jurisdiction in mind.
That gap matters because the legal and cultural landscape around LGBTQIA+ inclusion varies significantly across the markets where global insurers operate. For CHROs and boards, that variation creates real complexity: in how relocation conversations are handled, in how benefits apply across borders, in how inclusion commitments are communicated consistently to a global workforce, and increasingly, in whether the most sought-after senior candidates are willing to accept a cross-border posting at all.
This article is a practical guide for insurance leaders who want to make sure their inclusion strategy actually travels with them, and who understand that in a competitive global talent market, the firms with clear, honest answers to these questions will have a meaningful edge.
The Global Picture Is More Complex Than Most Policies Acknowledge
The starting point is understanding the scale of variation that global insurance firms are already operating within.
As of 2025, same-sex sexual acts were legal in 141 countries out of 202 studied, a meaningful majority, but one that still leaves a significant portion of the world where the legal context is more restrictive. Critically, even in markets where same-sex relationships are legal, employment protections are not guaranteed. In more than half the world, LGBTQIA+ people are not protected from discrimination by workplace law.
The landscape is also not moving uniformly in one direction. 2024 saw 15 countries improve their legal protections, including three that decriminalised same-sex relationships, but it also saw 8 countries introduce new restrictions, particularly targeting transgender individuals. The environment is shifting in multiple directions simultaneously, and at pace.
For insurance firms operating globally, two things make this especially complicated. First, legal protections and lived experience are not the same thing. A market can have relatively progressive legislation and a cultural environment in which LGBTQIA+ employees do not feel safe being open at work. Second, a firm's ability to maintain a consistent inclusion commitment across offices depends entirely on whether its policies were designed with that variation in mind, and most were not.
Why This Is a Talent Problem, Not Just an HR One
There is a version of this conversation that treats LGBTQIA+ inclusion as primarily a values or compliance question. That framing undersells the business case and, in our experience, is less likely to drive meaningful action at board level.
The more accurate framing is this: LGBTQIA+ inclusion has become a direct factor in whether global insurers can attract and retain the senior talent they need. And the data is unambiguous on that point.
According to Deloitte’s Global LGBTQ+ Inclusion @ Work Survey, one-third of LGBTQ+ workers are actively looking for a new role with a more inclusive employer. Among LGBTQ+ workers from ethnic minority backgrounds, more than half are actively looking. Around 69% of LGBTQ+ workers cited workforce diversity as their top consideration when evaluating employers.
The retention picture is equally stark. 97% of LGBTQ+ employees with positive inclusion experiences plan to stay with their employer for another year, compared to only 38% of those with negative experiences. That is not a marginal difference. It represents an enormous divergence in talent stability depending on whether an organisation's inclusion commitments are substantive or performative.
In cross-border hiring and global executive search, this dynamic plays out directly. A senior LGBTQIA+ candidate weighing a relocation offer is not just assessing the role and the package. They are assessing what the firm's inclusion commitment means in practice in the specific location being proposed: whether their same-sex partner's benefits will continue, whether the firm has a framework to support them if they face difficulties, and whether anyone in the organisation has even thought about these questions. Top candidates are increasingly factoring in location and employer stance before deciding whether to apply or accept.
The firms that cannot answer those questions clearly are not just creating an inclusion problem. They are losing candidates, often without knowing it, because the most experienced candidates simply decline without explanation.
Where Global Firms Most Commonly Get This Wrong
From our position conducting executive search across the global insurance and reinsurance market, we see a consistent set of failure modes in how firms manage this complexity. None of them reflect bad intent. Most reflect the fact that inclusion frameworks were not built with global complexity in mind.
Writing one policy for one market
The most common problem is structural. Most global non-discrimination policies were drafted with a home jurisdiction in mind. When those policies travel to offices in markets with different legal frameworks, they often do not account for what employees in those locations are actually entitled to, or what they are not. The result is a policy that appears consistent on paper but does not function consistently in practice. Employees in different locations have no clear understanding of what the firm's commitment actually means for them, and there is no mechanism to resolve that ambiguity.
Conflating legal compliance with inclusion
For employers and risk managers operating across borders, policies and duty of care must adapt to reflect both legal realities and nuanced, fast-moving regional contexts. A market being legally permissive does not mean it is culturally safe, or that employees feel comfortable being open at work. Firms that treat legal compliance as the ceiling of their obligation are missing the lived experience gap entirely, and in doing so, are likely managing attrition they cannot see.
Leaving difficult conversations to the candidate
More than a third of LGBTQ+ staff have hidden that they are LGBTQ+ at work through fear of discrimination. In cross-border hiring and relocation contexts, this means many LGBTQIA+ candidates will not raise concerns about a proposed location or posting. They will decline it quietly, or accept it and manage the uncertainty alone. Firms that wait for candidates to self-identify and raise questions are not providing adequate support. They are placing the burden of disclosure on the person least positioned to bear it.
Inadequate planning for the return
Most firms, to the extent they think about this at all, focus on the outbound assignment. Repatriation rarely features in the conversation. If an employee discloses their identity during an international posting but faces a more difficult environment upon return, or forms a relationship that is not easily recognised in their home country, firms that have not thought through this scenario in advance will be poorly placed to support them. This is both a duty of care issue and, practically, a retention risk at a stage when the employee has significant institutional knowledge and market value.
What Leading Global Insurance Firms Are Doing Differently
The good news is that the firms getting this right are not doing anything especially complicated. What distinguishes them is preparation, specificity, and the willingness to have conversations proactively rather than reactively.
Building globally consistent policies with locally aware implementation
The most effective approach is a single global non-discrimination policy that explicitly names sexual orientation and gender identity, paired with market-specific addenda that set out what additional support is available to employees in each location. The policy makes clear that the firm's commitment does not vary by geography, even when the legal environment does. Employees in every market understand what the firm stands for and what recourse they have.
Initiating relocation conversations, not waiting for candidates to
LGBTQIA+ employees need written confirmation of how corporate policies apply in their destination: specific answers on whether same-sex partner benefits continue, how the firm handles visa processes for same-sex spouses, and what support is available if they face difficulties. The firms doing this well have made it standard practice to raise these questions proactively, as part of any cross-border relocation conversation, regardless of whether a candidate has indicated they are LGBTQIA+. That removes the burden of disclosure from the candidate and signals, clearly, that the firm has thought about these questions before being asked.
Training hiring managers on what senior candidates are weighing
Most hiring managers at insurance firms are not equipped to answer questions about how their firm's inclusion commitments translate across offices. Briefing them on the firm's actual position, not just the content of the policy document, is a meaningful differentiator in competitive senior searches. Candidates notice when the person across the table cannot answer basic questions about what inclusion looks like in practice.
Extending duty of care beyond the assignment
Support for LGBTQIA+ employees in cross-border roles should not end when the assignment ends. Repatriation planning, continuity of benefits across borders, and clear escalation channels all form part of a credible global inclusion framework. Firms that treat these as edge cases, rather than planning for them in advance, consistently find themselves responding poorly when the situations arise.
Distinguishing between legal compliance and cultural safety
The most sophisticated firms are going beyond legal checklists to understand what the day-to-day experience actually looks like for LGBTQIA+ employees across their global footprint, through anonymous internal surveys, manager training programmes, and regular reviews of how global policies are being implemented locally. The question they are asking is not "are we compliant?" but "do our LGBTQIA+ employees in every market feel they can bring their full selves to work?" Those are very different questions, and the gap between the answers is where talent is being lost.
The Leadership Question
Global insurance firms operate in a world where the landscape around LGBTQIA+ inclusion is complex, evolving, and genuinely different from one market to the next. That complexity is not a reason to avoid the conversation, but a reason to lead it more deliberately.
The firms that will attract and retain the strongest global talent are the ones with honest, well-prepared answers to the questions that senior LGBTQIA+ candidates and employees are asking. Not just a policy on paper, but a framework that functions across every market they operate in. The firms that cannot answer those questions are already losing candidates they cannot name and managing attrition they cannot explain.
For CHROs and boards, this is not a peripheral HR consideration. It is a leadership issue, and it belongs in the same conversation as succession planning, talent strategy, and the conditions required to attract and retain the best people in a competitive global market.
Â
Eliot Partnership is the only global executive search firm dedicated exclusively to the insurance and reinsurance industry. We work with the world's leading insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and specialty platforms to build leadership teams equipped for what's next. To speak with our team about gender diversity strategy, succession planning, or executive search, visit eliotpartnership.com.
