The reporting component of Solvency II has become a major concern for insurance companies operating in Europe. Solvency II Pillar III increases reporting requirements in terms of volume, frequency, timeliness and complexity. These, in turn, have a direct bearing on insurers’ data, processes, methodologies and organization. The pressure put on insurers to enhance their reporting calls for a revamped closing and reporting framework where integration is part of the approach. Beyond the new Solvency II requirements, reporting, in our view, remains a pressing issue at the global level.

1. The Insurance Reporting Challenge:
Building an Integrated
Framework

2. 2
Solvency II Pillar III increases reporting
requirements in terms of volume, frequency,
timeliness and complexity. These, in turn,
have a direct bearing on insurers’ data,
processes, methodologies and organization.
The pressure put on insurers to enhance their
reporting calls for a revamped closing and
reporting framework where integration is part
of the approach. Beyond the new Solvency II
requirements, reporting, in our view, remains
a pressing issue at the global level.
Thanks to renewed field-testing, dry runs
and preparatory exercises, the operational
challenges of closing the books in the new
Solvency II regime have been explored,
including issues such as timeliness of
actuarial calculations, completeness of
control checks, the operability of the
required look-through approach, the
comprehensiveness of the data and the
embedding of the entire data and information
production value chain into insurers’ existing
frameworks. These issues (and others)
should be addressed via action plans to find
ways to simplify, rationalize, and automate
processes, methods and organization.
Responding to these is necessary, we believe,
but not sufficient to addressing the reporting
challenge facing insurers.
Finance, risk and prudential closings are
more or less functionally linked, and their
production processes and organizational
definitions should not be treated in silos.
Failure to embrace a comprehensive
perspective may jeopardize insurers’ capacity
to effectively address regulatory demands.
The multitude of regimes such as Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) and the Market Consistent Embedded
Value (MCEV), will require the closing of
books under each standard. This should
encourage insurers to approach these
standards and requirements using an
integrated framework covering processes,
systems and people dimensions. Solvency II
and its pillars should be embedded into this
integrated framework.
With legal submission deadlines becoming
stricter up until 2020―for year-end as well as
quarter-end reporting―and with new reporting
requirements concerning multiple stakeholders
from the accounting and actuarial areas,
insurers are encouraged to streamline their
finance and risk reporting and production
processes. This could allow forward-looking
insurers to set up a more efficient and
effective reporting framework.
Introduction
In recent months, the reporting component
of Solvency II has become a major concern
for insurance companies operating in Europe.

3. 3
With the January 1, 2016 implementation
of Solvency II, insurers might find themselves
having to address both Solvency I and II
regulatory requirements over the near term.
This will essentially double the reporting
burden faced by insurers’ operational
teams. And, with the looming addition and
changes to reporting requirements such as
IFRS (impacting assets and liabilities), new
capital standards (impacting own funds),
new National Specific Templates (NST) and
statistical reporting requirements from the
ECB (European Central Bank) and the FSB
(Financial Stability Board), they will also
be encouraged to integrate their processes
and adopt a different operating mindset.
To avoid major bottlenecks and congestion in
submitting their different regulatory packages
to national supervisors on a timely basis, and
to deal with multiple closings in a short time
frame, insurers should be planning their next
move to avoid building “reporting factories”
they won’t be able to effectively manage or
maintain in the long run.
Mutualizing efforts, reducing time spent on
producing and correcting data, industrializing
and accelerating the entire reporting
production chain are part of the overall
approach. However, by themselves, these
actions cannot deliver timely and quality
reporting on a consistent basis. As insurers
are challenged to do more with less, they
should be thinking about how to improve
the entire closing and reporting process.
We see speed, efficiency, quality, compliance
and control as the central features of every
closing blueprint.
Insurers are also encouraged to switch gears
from a “fastidious close” mindset to a “fast
close” approach allowing them to consistently
close their books on time, to multiple
standards, and report at expected closing
dates with less effort and fewer challenges.
Greater speed, and increasing flexibility to
submit reports covering multiple financial
and prudential standards, can be delivered by
building an integrated closing and reporting
framework where quantitative and qualitative
information are produced in an integrated
manner until financial communication.

4. 4
Source: Accenture analysis based upon publicly available information from: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, European Commission,
International Accounting Standards Board, International Association of Insurance Supervisors and the Financial Stability Board, October 2015
Figure 1. High-level Global Regulatory Roadmap (as of October 2015)
As shown in Figure 1 below, there are
multiple, complex reporting requirements,
with variations and divergences in basic
components such as valuation approaches
which need to be reconciled. As insurers
respond to pressure to meet new capital,
accounting and prudential rules, they are
transforming their finance and risk operations
to produce what has been termed an
“avalanche of information.1
”
Regulations can act as a catalyst for
transformational change, but insurers
are encouraged to anticipate the content
of future rules. This will help them better
understand how the different standards
and elements should be produced and
reported by the different functions and
at different frequencies. Figure 2 shows
how switching from a layered approach
to a synchronized and integrated one is
in our view key to sustainably meeting
the insurance reporting challenge.
A Wave of Changes
Insurers are facing a rapidly evolving regulatory environment
with new and changing standards imposed by different
national, regional and global regulatory authorities.
2014
High-levelRegulatoryRoadmap
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 …
IFRS 4 Phase 2
Level 2OMD II Level 3
FT FT BCR FT
FT ICS
01/01/16
BCR FT BCR FT
CapitalStandardsSolvencyIINewIFRS
IFRS 9
Standard development
by standard-setters
BCR: Basic Capital Requirement
CMG: Crisis Management Group
ComFrame: Common Framework for the Supervision of
Internationally Active Insurance Groups
ED: Exposure Draft
EIOPA: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
FT: Field Testing
FTA: First Time Adoption
G-SII: Global Systemically Important Insurer
HLA: Higher Loss Absorbency
IAIG: Internationally Active Insurance Group
ICS: Insurance Capital Standard
IFRS: International Financial Reporting Standards
OMD II: Omnibus II Directive
SRMP: Systemic Risk Management Plan
RRP: Recovery and Resolution Plan
Glossary:
Implementation of
required changes by
undertakings
Standard
development
milestone
Standard
implementation
milestone
Delays/Uncertainties
ComFrame
G-SII
Implementation of EIOPA interim measures Embedding of business as usual/Optimization of implemented framework/Fast-closing until steady state
BCR
Consultation
HLA
Consultation
ICS Consultation/Resolution ComFrame Consultation/ICS ComFrame Consultation/ICS
Mandatory effective
date of IFRS 9 (pending
EU endorsement)
New ED with shorter
comment period
Final standard on
Insurance Contracts
Final standard on
Financial Instruments
CMG established
+ SRMP completed
BCR + updated G-SII list HLA Proposal
RRP Private BCR
Reporting Global ICS
for IAIGs
G-SII
Plan
update
Confidential
reporting
of ICS
Confidential
reporting
of ICS
Confidential
reporting
of ICS
G-SII
Plan
update
G-SII
Plan
update
Adoption of
ICS V1.0
Adoption of
ComFrame/ICS V2.0
Double IFRS 9 implementation
(unless activation of a
deferral approach until 2020
to align both Standards)
HLA
Reporting
The forthcoming changes
will likely not be effective
before 2020
FTA possibility
FTA possibility
FT ICS

5. Accounting
Investment
Actuarial
Risk
Finance
Modeling
Other
Project Management Office
IT Support
Compliance
Investor Management
Capital Planning
Annually
Quarterly
Monthly
OnDemand
Other
Management
BCR, HLA, ICS
ORSA
Sensitivities
MCEV
NST, FSR, ECB
Narrative
Solvency II
IFRS (incl. 9 and 4 Ph. 2)
Local GAAP
Frequency
Type of Reporting
Contributors
5
Glossary:
ORSA: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment
Source: Accenture, October 2015
Figure 2. The Insurance Finance and Risk-wide Reporting Structure
However, the operational frameworks
developed and deployed by insurers may
be a long way from being completely
embedded, autonomous, and consistent
with their intended targets. To close the
last mile and help meet compliance targets
for Day One Reporting, insurers may need
to undertake additional initiatives.
Beyond Solvency II, there are other
regulatory changes in the finance and risk
area. These include requirements specific
to reporting templates from the ECB, or
those such as the NST or the new IFRS 9
(financial instruments) and IFRS 4 Phase II
(insurance contract) requirements. To this
we would add global capital standards such
as Basic Capital Requirements, Higher Loss
Absorbency, Insurance Capital Standards and
future Solvency II changes, including XBRL
(eXtensible Business Reporting Language)
taxonomy fine-tuning or Standard Formula
calibration. From that perspective, insurers’
finance and risk production factories
should be able to respond to regulators’
evolving demands in addition to addressing
the insurers’ organic changes, including
new product launches or M&A activity.
Preparing for Day One Reporting is a
top priority, and supervisors expect
timely submissions from insurers. But
meeting deadlines at the expense of staff
compensating for the inefficiencies of
technology or processes is not sustainable.
Insurers should be thinking strategically
about the overall architecture and framework
of their reporting production. The ultimate
objective should be a “smart factory” for
producing regulatory reporting in a lean,
rationalized, and reliable way. By combining
efficiency and timeliness, insurers can
address the sometimes conflicting demands
of compliance: Meeting deadlines and
providing high-quality data. Supervisors
have called for greater reporting maturity
in insurance, which could lead to future
regulations regarding audit standards for
Solvency II and create an even greater
need for high quality public disclosure.2
Upcoming Changes Beyond Solvency II
Solvency II regulatory reporting goes into effect on January 1,
2016. For many insurers, the effort to comply with Solvency II
requirements has been costly in terms of time, money and effort.

6. 6

7. 7
In addressing complex and sometimes
conflicting insurance reporting
requirements, insurers’ boards and
management teams should ask some
fundamental questions about their
existing reporting frameworks:
• Do our tools fit our business needs and is
our architecture efficient and seamlessly
integrated between systems?
• Are our processes properly designed
and understood at the right level by the
business teams that need to follow them?
• Is our organization sufficiently equipped
in terms of skills, seniority mix, capacity,
technology and other resources?
• Is the transformation roadmap clear and
correctly phased so as not to disrupt the
production teams?
• Is our overall reporting framework
progressively improving and are we on the
right track?
• How do we transition into business as
usual and establish a sustainable mode of
operation?
In a more operational model,
key questions would include:
• Which target are we following to define
our end-state insurance reporting process
(2016 and beyond?)
• What is the scope of standards we want
to envision (i.e. local GAAP, IFRS, Solvency
II Phase III, other Solvency II requirement,
other regulatory standards, internal
reporting?)
• Which level of process granularity are we
looking at defining, for example, cross-
departmental steering versus internal
department needs?
• Which reporting deadlines are we trying
to meet internally within our group and/or
corporate structure?
• How do we coordinate individual and
consolidated processes with financial
communication expectations?
• How do we coordinate quantitative with
qualitative reporting production such as
narrative appendices, regular supervisory
reporting for the Solvency and Financial
Conditions Report (RSR-SFCR), and
reference documents?
Reporting requirements may be
a driver of structural change.
The whole production value chain
offers possibilities for finding and
fixing deficiencies or insufficiencies,
including such areas as:
• Model changes and computational
challenges
• Links between Pillar I and Pillar III
• Links with accounting
• Links with ORSA
• Quarterly reporting
• XBRL validation and submission
• Multiple standards reconciliation
• Internal reporting
• Consolidation and group specific issues
• Embedding within business as usual
Insurers should be clear about how they
address these and other specific issues.
Dealing with Proliferating Insurance
Reporting Requirements
Current reporting processes―as well as dry runs to prepare
for Solvency II requirements―are time-consuming and
resource-intensive. They have been compared to running
a marathon each quarter.

8. 8
There is no “one size fits all” approach
to financial reporting, but we have
found that there are some key actions
which are consistently undertaken by
insurers, such as:
• Engaging stakeholders to absorb the
content of final Solvency II Level 3 texts
(Implementing Technical Standards and
Guidelines) to facilitate implementation
and improve ownership
• Gauging the extent of required changes
to meet Day One Reporting standards
(in terms of IT, process, organization and
methods) to fill in what is missing
• Reassessing current status and being able to
share this information with local controllers
(progress reporting, problems encountered,
actions taken and other items)
• Supporting the continued ownership
of evolving requirements by the entire
company and build a culture of multi-
standard reporting
• Defining priorities and next steps to
increase overall consistency and build
synergies among Solvency II pillars and
other reporting needs
• Establishing a monitoring structure to
consistently and continuously improve
the reporting framework and maintain
momentum from stable state to steady state
To effectively address the increasing
multistandard reporting requirements
and the need for internal control over
improved financial and prudential
information, we believe insurers should
consider:
• Modeling the multistandard processes
in a holistic, integrated approach and
consider reporting as a consistent object
on a data production line, where systems,
business teams and issues can address
multiple concerns
• Designing processes at the macro
level with the ability to access greater
details concerning sub-processes,
interdependencies and points of contention.
This can help identify the best options for
simplifying, streamlining and industrializing
processes, and for organizing the annual,
quarterly or biannual calendar runs
• Establishing a governance and control
framework across the entire value chain
to help secure multistandard productions
with the required audit trail and quality
levels, respecting deadlines and sign-offs,
including those needed for inter-standards
reconciliations
• Defining a target state―and a roadmap
for getting there―and revisiting both
regularly to facilitate compliance by using
a progressive, step-by-step approach to
allow continuous improvement and to
maintain flexibility
• Monitoring and anticipating regulatory
changes far enough in advance to allow for
implementation―particularly in systems―and
to prevent potential side effects associated
with imposing one standard over another
• Integrating the different business and
IT teams in a culture of multistandard
reporting and fostering the implementation
of sound practices in the organizations,
including, in our view, moving from
a project mode basis to a production
mode basis both at the operational and
management levels
• Regularly benchmarking against market
practices on day-to-day issues while
recognizing each company’s uniqueness
and specificity
Addressing Areas of Concern

9. Through the use of technologies such as
big data, analytics and digital―combined
with a robust methodology―we may
envision an innovative user experience
in which an insurer’s solvency ratio
is available on demand. The digitally
connected Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
and Chief Risk Officer (CRO) need only
look at his or her smartwatch and see in
real-time the company’s Solvency II ratio
as it responds to market developments
related to its investment portfolio or to
its policies. Though hypothetical, this may
be the future of prudential management.
Accenture is committed to help
clients embed analytics and digital
approaches. We work with clients to
tackle quantitative calculations and
reporting, and deliver analytically-driven
information that supports quicker,
smarter and more confident decision
making. Accenture brings agility to
client assignments, the capabilities
to connect people to technology and
the skills and know-how to support
sustainable interactivity in the day-to-
day management of the client’s business.
Insurance Reporting
on Demand
The Possible CFO and CRO Reality Levers and Benefits
Insurer 2.0
SOLVENCY II ratio
195%
11 June
10:56
Big data/Analytics/Cloud
Digitalized processes
Operational über-simplicity
On-demand real-time
key performance indicators
9

10. 10
To do this, insurers should keep
five key points in mind:
1) Understand the dynamics
of reporting templates.
In responding to Solvency II
requirements, knowing how the Solvency
II Quantitative Reporting Templates
(QRTs) work together in addressing
business and technical validations is,
in our view, essential to building a
robust closing framework.
The production of QRTs can be compared
to a railway network, both at the IT
and process levels, with cross-platform
interchanges between systems and
where junctions may bridge gaps
between actuarial engines and reporting
applications, or between an upstream
system and an accounting tool. The
different QRT processes meet at major
points of reconciliation (hubs) such as
the balance sheet (e.g. BS-C1) or the own
funds (e.g. OF-B1).
Increasing the efficiency of the entire
process depends on understanding
the precise linkages between current
regulatory standards, processes, sub-
processes, reconciliations and other
elements. As suggested by Figure 4, smart
workflow design and implementation of
the Solvency II closing framework may
help insurers reap tangible and scalable
benefits, particularly in dealing with
shorter closing deadlines associated with
IFRS 4 Phase II.
Building a Holistic Reporting Framework
Meeting the challenge of insurance reporting calls for a balanced view,
with both detailed and big-picture understanding of the reporting
requirements and how they translate into operational actions.
Figure 3. High-level QRT Table of Elements
Figure 4. High-level Reporting Linkages
Source: Accenture, October 2015
Source: Accenture illustrative analysis based on publicly available EIOPA documents, October 2015
=+ Data Quality
Pre-requisiteBs As Tp Re Sr Of Va Gr
94
Balance Sheet Assets Reinsurance Own Funds Group SpecificTechnical
Provisions
Solvency
Requirements
Variation
Analysis
60 89 26 29 16 3287
Data
Validations
MCR: Minimum Capital Requirement
RSR: Regular Supervision Report
SCR: Solvency Capital Requirement
SFCR: Solvency and Financial Condition Report
Glossary:
Statutory
Accounting
Statutory
Accounting
Statutory
Accounting
Assets Reinsurance Technical
Provisions
RSR-
SFCR
Balance
Sheet
Cover/
Country
Off-Balance
Sheet
Balance Sheet by
Currency
RSR-
SFCR
Own
Funds
Variation
Analysis
SCR
by Module
Global
SCR
MCR
Business
Plan
BS
at t0
SCR
at t0
Own Funds
at t0
ORSA
RSR-
SFCR

11. 11

12. 12
2) Set up a tentative system of
insurance reporting beyond QRT.
Having identified the components of
the EIOPA QRT and grasped their
theoretical complexity, insurers can
use this as a building block to address
other insurance reporting requirements.
This, we feel, is instrumental to addressing
in an integrated and effective manner
the various demands, requirements and
granularity of requests from the different
regimes including local GAAP, IFRS
(IFRS 9 and IFRS 4 Phase II) and ORSA.
3) Build a process which bundles Gantt
and PERT (Program Evaluation
Review Technique) dimensions.
This is important for understanding and
visualizing the dependencies between
reporting templates on the critical
production path and the expected
completion time for each assigned task.
By integrating logical and chronological
dimensions, the coordination team can
help steer the production of financial
and prudential deliverables and guide the
business teams in aligning their activities to
the closing framework, and thus promote
operational excellence (see Figure 5).
4) Establish a balanced process. Insurers
need the ability to access detailed
information and, if required, use
an integrated approach to address
specific issues on a timely basis.
This capability should be built on
knowledge and skills at both the micro
and macro levels. For example, defining
a holistic multinorm process or defining
the specific needs of a sub-process such
as financial or prudential communication
should be integrated as part of a whole, in
order to avoid discrepancy in the expected
end states. As seen in Figure 6, investor
relations communication should be fueled
by upstream key risk and performance
indicators (KRIs and KPIs) and outputs
from the closing processes including
Solvency II.
5) Despite unknowns, a proactive
mindset is encouraged.
Even if there are many unknowns
surrounding the implementation of
Solvency II and other major regulatory
directives, insurers are encouraged to
prepare the high-level production process
of the full reporting package, with all
components identified, and with details
addressed when published. This proactive
mindset and approach may help avoid
potential future problems.
Ideally, reporting should not be a siloed
activity. It overlaps multiple functions and
operations across the enterprise. Getting
reporting and the associated production
process right can help insurers better
understand their data capabilities and may
help them convert their data into valuable
insights. An integrated reporting framework
comprising multiple dimensions supporting
regulatory requirements and demands (as seen
in Figure 7), and the right technology, could
help improve the efficiency of the reporting
process and the organization’s operational
focus. This also helps management gain access
to appropriate and timely KPIs and KRIs
without stretching their people, process and
technology resources.
Figure 5. Example of a High-level Reporting Flow in a Solvency II-era
Figure 5 presents an illustrative and generic view of a high-level target reporting plan in a Solvency
II-era. This should be customized to address the insurer’s particular situation and completed with
its relevant finance and risk workstreams (depending upon factors such as the insurer’s internal
ambitions around closing dates, its geographic presence and its product portfolio among others).
Source: Accenture, October 2015
94 60 89 26 2987
FSR: Financial Stability Reporting
Solo Group
Glossary:Legend:
National
January February March April May June July AugustOctober DecemberSeptember November September
mid-
QRT
FSR
National Reporting (= NST + Financial
Accounts and Appendices)
Reporting QRT and RSR-SFCR
QRT QRT QRT
QRT and
RSR-SFCR
QRT
FSR
QRT QRT
FSR FSRFSR
ECB ECB ECB ECB
FSR FSR
W+14
W+5 W+5 W+5 W+5 W+11
W+7 W+7 W+7 W+7
W+20
Annual Process
Q4 Process Q2 ProcessQ3 Process
QRT
FSR
QRT
FSR
W+11 W+11W+11
ORSAORSA
ORSAActuarial Report
Q1 Process
W+14 (depending on the National Supervisor)

13. 13
Figure 6. Integrating Solvency II within External Communication
Figure 7. Connecting the Different Insurance Standards in a Consistent Way
Source: Accenture, October 2015
Source: Accenture, October 2015
$
€ 61
67894
SCR
Available
Capital
24
Multiple Inputs
Market-Value
Balance Sheet
Best
Estimate
Own
Funds Solvency II Metrics
Solvency II Coverage Ratio
Ratings
CFO, Management, Stakeholders, Analysts…
External
Communication
Key Indicator
Financial
Community
Key Output
QRT
SFCR
Local GAAP
IFRS
Solvency II
Business Plan
ORSA
Sensitivities
NST FSR
MCEV
ECB

14. Conclusion
By now, insurers should have developed
a roadmap to prepare for the January 1, 2016
Solvency II implementation and Day One
requirements.
There are numerous areas requiring
attention and fine-tuning. These include the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Solvency
II production reporting framework, the
proper grasp and understanding of final
QRT content and requirements, accelerating
the calculation and reporting process, and
alignment with other data collection needs
(both qualitative and quantitative.)
The introduction of new, complex reporting
requirements such as Solvency II Pillar
III, IFRS 9 and IFRS 4 Phase II, and the
convergence of financial and prudential
standards, finance and risk, and static and
dynamic data calls for a sophisticated and
holistic approach to reporting using solid
capabilities. Insurers may take advantage
of the changes in reporting standards to
strengthen their reporting frameworks from
an integrated (end-to-end) perspective and
thus benefit the entire company.
We believe insurers who see beyond their
short-term compliance efforts and, instead,
implement an effective reporting function,
position themselves to improve the overall
performance of their business units while
avoiding compliance issues. They can reach
this desired state by addressing reporting
process issues in a holistic approach.
Streamlining production frameworks in
an integrated way―with deep functional
understanding and knowledge in the IT
area―is not an easy task. However, we
encourage insurers to follow this path as
this may help the data production value chain
run more smoothly and reliably. This provides
a benefit to all insurers addressing regulatory
regimes that are still in flux.
Accenture Finance & Risk Services brings
together Accenture’s consulting, technology
and outsourcing assets along with deep
insurance industry knowledge to help insurers
meet changing external market challenges
and respond to their complexities with
confidence. We understand the finance and
risk space and work with insurers to deliver
IT and business-oriented applications and
systems to drive competitive advantage.
Figure 8 offers a quick overview of how
Accenture can help insurers address their
finance and risk transformation.
As Solvency II is about to come into force, insurers are under
pressure to incorporate data and content of greater quality
into their financial reporting.
14

15. Accenture Finance
and Risk Integrated
Insurance Reporting
Transformation
Finance and Risk
Optimization Triangle
CFOs and CROs in the insurance industry
face a tsunami of regulatory changes
and economic pressure requiring them
to do more with less.
We bring together Accenture’s...
What is the burning platform?
Key offerings and services
What do we do?
Functional focus
Did you know...
For more information, visit
www.accenture.com/financeandrisk
• Increasing multistandards
regulatory demands
• Growing focus on finance and
risk convergence
• Intensifying pressures on cost reductions
Insurance
Finance and
Risk functional
knowledge
Technology
Consulting
Operations
capabilities
+ +
To address these looming challenges,
firms should re-evaluate their operating
frameworks and re-define the way their
teams operate. They should define their
specific transformation ambition articulating
functional and IT scopes and levels of
efficiency and integration.
Our focus: Develop integrated
solutions to help clients embed
compliant, streamlined and
effective processes into their
business as usual activities. We help
them to define and implement
consistent, efficient, operational,
and fully-articulated, multiclose
and multinorm target frameworks.
We help insurers streamline their operating
frameworks in terms of process and
organization, integrate finance and risk
functions, align and integrate disparate
sources of data, and deliver the technology
solutions to operate in a seamless and
integrated way (from collection to
communication of data through calculation
and reporting).
1. Solvency II (MVBS, ORSA, QRT, RSR…)
2. Integrated Fast-Close (Statutory/Prudential)
3. Accounting/Actuarial Convergence
4. End-to-End Reporting Framework
5. Financial Communication (KPI, Steering…)
6. Regulatory Reporting (NST, ECB, FSB…)
7. Process Remediation (Audit, Control…)
8. Finance and Risk Transformation
9. New Standards (IFRS 4/9, BCR, HLA…)
10. Business Intelligence and Analytics
We have finance
and risk resources in
We provide services to
all types of insurers
Actuary Accounting Reporting
Key areas we work with...
+40 Life/Non-Life
Reinsurer
Solo/Group…countries
Risk/
Calculating
business
services
General/
Technical
accounting,
Investments,
Consolidation
Regulatory/
Internal,
Financial
communication
Focus on streamlining operational
processes and operations to address
regulations and cost pressures.
• Increased cost
of operations
• Need for
timeliness,
consistency
and accuracy
• Increased
capital,
accounting,
prudential
and reporting
requirements
Costs
Complexity Regulations
Streamline
processes
Align
data and
calculations
Deliver
technology
Access
talent
15
Figure 8. Accenture’s Approach to Insurance Reporting Transformation
Source: Accenture, October 2015

16. Copyright © 2015 Accenture
All rights reserved.
Accenture, its logo, and
High Performance Delivered
are trademarks of Accenture.
15-4338
References
1. “Sergio Balbinot conference opening
speech – 27 May 2015,” Insurance Europe.
Access at: http://www.insuranceeurope.
eu/sites/default/files/attachments/7th%20
International%20Insurance%20
Conference%20-%20Opening%20
address%20Sergio%20Balbinot.pdf
2. “Need for high quality public disclosure:
Solvency II’s report on solvency and
financial condition and the potential role
of external audit,” European Insurance
and Occupational Pensions Authority,
June 29, 2015. Access at: https://eiopa.
europa.eu/Publications/Other%20
Documents/EIOPA_high%20quality%20
public%20disclosure_Solvency%20II.pdf
About the Authors
Eric Jeanne
Eric is a Managing Director – Finance &
Risk Services, based in Paris. He specializes
in Risk Management and Finance for the
insurance industry, with a focus on Enterprise
Risk Management framework, Solvency II
and Risk and Finance architecture. Eric has
been with Accenture for more than 15 years,
leading large transformation projects at
major insurance and reinsurance companies,
and helping clients to transform their Risk
and Finance capabilities and processes.
Fabien Oulmont
Fabien is a Senior Manager – Finance & Risk
Services, based in Paris. Specialized in Finance
and Risk matters for the insurance industry,
he works with clients to transform their
processes, methods, tools and organization
to drive value. With a focus on major
regulatory agendas including Solvency II,
he brings his cross-functional and technical
skills to help insurers build, operationalize
and streamline their end-to-end financial
and prudential information capabilities.
Stay Connected
Accenture Finance & Risk Services
www.accenture.com/us-en/financial-
services-finance-risk-business-service.aspx
Connect With Us
www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=3753715
Join Us
www.facebook.com/accenture
Follow Us
www.twitter.com/accenture
Watch Us
www.youtube.com/accenture
About Accenture
Accenture is a leading global professional
services company, providing a broad range of
services and solutions in strategy, consulting,
digital, technology and operations. Combining
unmatched experience and specialized skills
across more than 40 industries and all business
functions—underpinned by the world’s largest
delivery network—Accenture works at the
intersection of business and technology to help
clients improve their performance and create
sustainable value for their stakeholders. With
more than 358,000 people serving clients in
more than 120 countries, Accenture drives
innovation to improve the way the world works
and lives. Visit us at www.accenture.com.
Disclaimer
This document is intended for general informational
purposes only and does not take into account the
reader’s specific circumstances, and may not reflect
the most current developments. Accenture disclaims,
to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any
and all liability for the accuracy and completeness of
the information in this document and for any acts or
omissions made based on such information. Accenture
does not provide legal, regulatory, audit, or tax advice.
Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from
their own legal counsel or other licensed professionals.