From member education to action

Workplace financial wellness programs are producing more content than ever; webinars, articles, calculators, and educational campaigns. But far fewer retirement programs can say, with confidence, that these efforts are changing member behaviour. 

That distinction matters. Under the updated CAPSA Guidelines, sponsors are expected not only to provide education but also to support informed decision-making and improve member outcomes. Yet many plans still measure participation in financial wellness programs rather than whether members are taking meaningful action. 

Recent industry discussions have highlighted a growing shift in how financial wellness is being approached. Women don’t just experience financial stress differently. We need to consider whether financial wellness needs to be reframed around confidence, autonomy, and plan design – not just more information. 

For Capital Accumulation Plan (CAP) sponsors, that distinction is important because retirement outcomes in Defined Contribution (DC) and CAP structures depend heavily on member action. Members must enroll, contribute adequately, remain invested, revisit decisions after life events, and engage with the plan over time. But education alone is not engagement. And in a CAP, engagement matters only if it changes behaviour.  

Information is not engagement 

Most financial wellness strategies are built on a simple assumption: if members understand more, they will behave differently. Experience, however, suggests otherwise. 

Many members already know they should be saving more, increasing contributions, or reviewing their retirement strategy. The problem is often not awareness. It is that the path from intention to action is unclear, poorly timed, overly complex, or disconnected from members’ immediate financial realities. 

Financial confidence and autonomy are shaped not only by what members know but also by how retirement programs and workplaces are designed around real-world decisions. A member may fully understand the importance of saving and still fail to increase contributions if the process is cumbersome, if the communication arrives at the wrong moment, or if the message feels disconnected from their current financial pressures. 

In that sense, financial wellness is partly an education issue – and partly a design issue.  

Why this matters for women in CAPs 

The broader conversation around women’s financial wellness is increasingly shifting away from deficit framing and toward empowerment. For sponsors, the practical takeaway is not to stereotype members or assume a single experience. It is to recognize that caregiving responsibilities, career interruptions, health events, earnings patterns, and confidence levels all shape how members engage with retirement programs. 

A generic financial wellness strategy can easily miss those realities. 

Some members need help getting started rather than optimizing. Others need support restarting contributions after a leave or disruption. Many are balancing long-term retirement savings against immediate financial strain. Some need plan features explained in plain language. Others need help making one specific decision rather than absorbing broad retirement theory. 

If financial wellness programs are built primarily around generalized education, they may never feel relevant enough to drive action.  

A more useful governance question 

Instead of asking whether financial wellness resources exist, retirement committees should ask a more practical question: is the current engagement strategy producing meaningful member action? 

That shifts the discussion away from content volume and toward decision quality. A focused governance review does not require a full redesign. But it should examine whether the plan experience consistently supports confidence, reduces friction, and helps members act when decisions matter most. 

1. Segmentation: are we communicating as if all members are the same? 

Too many financial wellness strategies still treat members as though they share the same priorities, confidence levels, and financial circumstances. 

In reality, engagement needs differ significantly across career stages and life events. New joiners, members early in their savings journey, employees returning from leave, mid-career workers managing competing financial obligations, and members approaching retirement all require different forms of support. 

Segmentation does not require hyper-personalization. But treating all members identically almost guarantees declining relevance and weaker engagement.  

2. Behavioural friction: how hard is it to take the right action? 

Small obstacles can have outsized effects in CAPs. A member who postpones a contribution change or delays enrolment may remain inactive for years. 

Sponsors should examine whether common actions are unnecessarily difficult. Can members easily enroll, restart contributions after a leave, update beneficiaries, locate plain-language explanations, or access support without navigating multiple systems? 

If not, the plan may be relying too heavily on member motivation and not enough on effective design.  

3. Defaults and plan design: are we expecting too much from members? 

Well-designed CAPs do not assume every member will be highly engaged or financially sophisticated. That is precisely why defaults matter.

Industry discussions have also reinforced an important point: plan design can either support confidence or undermine it. Contribution structures should encourage momentum, investment choices should avoid unnecessary paralysis, and communications should consistently connect plan features to real decisions members face. 

The objective is not to eliminate choice. It is to make reasonable decisions easier. 

What sponsors should do next 

Sponsors do not need more dashboards showing webinar attendance or content consumption. They need clearer evidence of whether members are engaging with the plan in meaningful ways. 

That means measuring actions rather than exposure: 

• Are members increasing contribution rates? 

• Are they logging in and completing key tasks? 

• Are they revisiting decisions after major life events? 

• Where are members abandoning or delaying action? 

Sponsors should also examine whether certain workforce groups consistently disengage without targeted support. Identifying friction points around enrolment, contribution changes, return-to-work transitions, and beneficiary updates often reveals where plan experience is breaking down. 

The objective is not to create endless personalization or additional layers of complexity. It is to remove avoidable barriers that prevent members from acting on decisions they already understand are important. 

What to avoid 

Two common pitfalls deserve attention. If the underlying issue is poor timing, unnecessary complexity, or weak plan integration, adding more content may simply create more noise. 

Second, do not let segmentation create unnecessary complexity. The goal is not a separate financial wellness strategy for every demographic group. It is to improve relevance where member needs are predictably different. 

Effective engagement strategies balance personalization with practicality. 

The bottom line 

The industry has spent years measuring participation rates, webinar attendance, and content distribution. But retirement outcomes are shaped by behaviour, not exposure to information. 

For CAP sponsors, the more important question is no longer whether education is available. It is whether members are acting on it. 

Because if financial wellness is not changing behaviour, it is not working. 

Andrea Schmelcher, CFA, is a senior consultant in TELUS Health’s DC practice, supporting capital accumulation plans on plan design, the fund lineup, member education, investment governance, and program oversight.