CAPTRUST Survey: The Value of Fiduciary Outsourcing

In CAPTRUST’s latest Defined Contribution Pulse Survey, we asked retirement plan sponsors about their decisions to retain or outsource fiduciary responsibilities and what they expected to achieve by doing so.

Nearly half of respondents (47 percent) reported using an advisor-assisted governance model where the committee retains final decision-making authority. The remaining majority of respondents reported outsourcing either a portion or a significant amount of their fiduciary responsibilities.

When asked which statement best describes their organization’s approach to fiduciary responsibility and retirement plan decision-making, respondents reported the following:

• Committee retains final decision-making, advisor assisted | 47 percent
• Specific responsibilities delegated (e.g. 3(38) or 3(16)) | 36 percent
• Significant responsibility delegated to a third party, such as a pooled employer plan (PEP) or professional employer organization (PEO) | 15 percent
• No shared responsibility | 3 percent

Overall, respondents expressed strong satisfaction with their current governance models, with 83 percent reporting no plans to change their current approach. Two key findings emerged from the survey:

Finding One: Access to expertise and risk reduction drive outsourcing decisions…

Committee time is limited, and many committees struggle to cover everything they hope to accomplish. While some organizations address this challenge through internal delegation or subcommittees, those that outsource fiduciary responsibilities cite different motivations.

Among sponsors that delegate responsibilities through a PEP, PEO, 3(38) investment manager, or 3(16) plan administrator, access to specialized expertise and risk reduction were the primary reasons for doing so.

Taken together, the results suggest that plan sponsors primarily view outsourcing as a way to strengthen oversight through specialized expertise and risk management, rather than simply reducing committee workload.

Finding Two: … but outsourcing also allows for more time to focus on strategic priorities, such as participant outcomes and retirement readiness.

Across the respondent groups who outsource responsibilities, the majority (35 percent) indicated that delegating fiduciary responsibility has created, or could create, space to allow greater focus on strategic priorities.

Whether modernizing an investment menu with retirement income features and advice tools, revisiting plan design to improve competitiveness and ease of use, or refining a financial wellness strategy to enhance participant outcomes and retirement readiness, committees are often focused on a range of important initiatives. Delegating some fiduciary responsibilities may free committees to devote more time and attention to those efforts.

While strategic priorities topped the list, 28 percent said outsourcing could reduce day-to-day oversight responsibilities, 22 percent said it could streamline committee meetings, and 15 percent said it could free up internal resources for other business initiatives.

Revisiting the Case for Outsourcing

Most plan sponsors are familiar with the option to delegate a portion of their fiduciary responsibilities to a third party. What was once a relatively novel concept has become a common topic in plan governance discussions.

It’s important to remember that outsourcing is not a one-time decision. Active government policy, shifting regulatory expectations, and a rapidly evolving retirement industry continue to reshape the demands placed on plan fiduciaries.

As those demands change, periodically revisiting the value and benefits of outsourcing can help committees determine whether their current governance model still makes the best use of their time, resources, and expertise.

The survey was conducted from August 12 to September 9, 2026, and generated 105 responses.