The institution evaluates the use of mobile devices for the collection of contributions and payment of benefits, taking account of the various methods of payment and technological options available.

The institution implements effective and quality-preserving interoperability mechanisms not only with other systems within the institution but also with external systems.

In addition to providing the means of interaction with other systems, interoperability mechanisms should keep track of the provenance of data obtained from other institutions.

The institution, in coordination with other participants in the agreement, implements interoperable services in accordance with the institutional model of interoperability for the implementation of international agreements.

The implementation of international agreements involves the development of a service-oriented architecture and includes the development and implementation of a set of services. These services must be properly orchestrated within a business processes model adequate to carry out the processes described in international agreements.

For these guidelines, the definition of investment governance begins with describing the key elements of a system of decision-making and oversight used to invest the assets of a fund. Thereafter, the definition extends to define investment governance as this relates specifically to the management of reserve funds of social security institutions.

Risk budget analysis is conducted to better understand the level of investment risk being taken and how it could be managed, and to determine an appropriate strategic asset allocation considering the risk budget established (as covered in Guideline 7).

Spending the risk budget enables the investing institution to determine an appropriate strategic asset allocation considering the available risk budget, investment assumptions, restrictions on investments and liabilities, and funding policy.

The investment strategy set out by the board or management is efficiently implemented.

This part of the Guidelines is concerned with establishing the national and institutional frameworks for the prevention programme to be conducted by a social security institution.

The institution encourages enterprises to participate in prevention programmes by offering non-financial incentives.

The institution has a system in place that facilitates an efficient and timely recognition of occupational diseases. It ensures that a process is set up to assess the causality between a professional activity and a disease.

Collaboration and networking offer opportunities for knowledge sharing, the exchange of good practice, increased impact and enhanced outreach. They also make effective use of human and financial resources and help identify a common approach among all stakeholders.

The institution has the legal mandate and policy framework to engage in prevention and return-to-work activities. Where legislation does not support effective return-to-work and sustainable employability outcomes, statutory changes are advocated that will mandate the institution to do so.

The competent institutions clearly and proactively inform jobseekers and workers of their rights and obligations.

The institution recommends and adopts innovative approaches to balance the need for adequate income security for the individual and the ability of the employer to adapt to a changing business environment.

The board, management, policy-makers and return-to-work professional play crucial roles in the setting up and operation of a return-to-work system.

The guidelines should be followed using a “top-down” approach which encourages ownership of their inherent values so that they are simultaneously accepted throughout the organization. The remaining guidelines are based on the following seven principles of return-to-work policy and programmes:

The person concerned is the key stakeholder of a social security institution. As such, they must be encouraged to participate fully in decisions which impact upon them. A person’s “active participation” refers to the process of facilitating their ability to engage constructively in their return-to-work plans on an equal basis with other actors. They should be encouraged and enabled to provide their input, protect their interests and lend their support to the process.

There is evidence that the return-to-work programme has the right structure, processes, information and technology, and involves the appropriate professionals and partners, to enable it to respond to changing individual and environmental factors.

Monitoring and evaluation enables the institution to capitalize on opportunities to intervene, reduce risks, increase efficiencies and ensure the person’s return to work.

To improve service quality, the institution invests in the skills and capability of the staff who deliver its services.

The social security institution commits formally to the role of workplace health promoter by emphasizing its capacity to motivate and engage the insured population for added value.

The insured population includes both those in workplaces and other actors in the social health insurance system.

Formal commitment requires the institution to make a strategic choice in favour of health promotion in a setting approach, recognizing the broader social, economic and environmental contexts which influence health status.

The institution adopts actions and approaches which will contribute to achieving its strategic goals for workplace health promotion.

Appropriate and effective actions and approaches on workplace health promotion could include disseminating information and advice, campaigning, building capacity through training and consultancy services, creating incentives, establishing quality assurance processes, creating relevant tools, and providing advice on data collection and use.

The institution publicly recognizes the importance of counselling and employee assistance programmes in addressing work- and non-work-related mental health and well-being issues, and their impact on performance and productivity.

These Guidelines on Actuarial Work for Social Security (hereafter referred to as ISSA-ILO Actuarial Guidelines) have been produced jointly by the International Social Security Association and the International Labour Organization.

The social security institution addresses and ensures implementation in a timely manner of the recommendations made by the operational audit and the independent expert review.

The board (if any), management of the social security institution and the actuary communicate clearly and effectively. This exchange of information improves management but doesn’t negatively impact the independence of the actuary.

The actuary complies with professional standards of any professional organization of which he or she is a member. The actuary complies with internal standards and guidelines of the social security institution, and/or institution to which he or she provides services. The actuary also follows any other guidelines relevant to the work which he or she is performing.

The challenge of extending full access to social security coverage to all those who have a right to it is an issue across all branches of social security, and permeates all institutions to various degrees. These guidelines identify administrative solutions to improve access to contributory social security programmes for populations that are difficult to cover; the so-called hard to reach.