Gallagher is one of the world’s largest insurance brokerage, risk management, and benefits and HR consulting organizations. Its current employer-facing capabilities extend across employee benefits, human resources consulting, compensation, retirement, HR technology, payroll consulting and managed payroll, employee communications, compliance, and commercial risk management. Gallagher currently serves clients across more than 130 countries.
That breadth makes Gallagher relevant to employers researching employee benefits consulting, HR outsourcing, managed payroll, HR technology, compensation strategy, compliance support, risk management, and PEO alternatives.
Gallagher is not primarily positioned as a direct PEO for employers, however. It operates principally through brokerage, consulting, advisory, outsourced-service, and risk-management relationships. Gallagher also has significant involvement in the PEO industry itself: its specialized PEO and temporary staffing insurance practice supports more than 150 PEOs, and its HR advisory practice offers PEO-exit services for companies transitioning away from a PEO.
ESI operates through a different structure. ESI is a direct Professional Employer Organization that connects payroll administration, employee benefits, HR support, workers’ compensation, regulatory compliance, risk management, and workforce technology within a co-employment relationship.
Gallagher can help answer, “Which benefits, HR, payroll, technology, and risk solutions should we build around our organization?” ESI helps answer, “Would connecting those employment responsibilities through one PEO relationship create a stronger operating model for our business?”
Compare Providers:
ESI vs. Engage PEO
Comparison Area | Gallagher | ESI |
Primary Model | Insurance brokerage, risk management, employee benefits consulting, HR consulting, payroll services, HR technology, and workforce advisory | Full-service Professional Employer Organization |
Employment Structure | Primarily consulting, brokerage, outsourced services, and advisory relationships | PEO co-employment relationship |
Employee Benefits | Major strength in benefits strategy, plan design, implementation, cost management, communication, and workforce consulting | Employee-benefits access, administration, and support integrated with the broader PEO relationship |
Payroll | Managed payroll, payroll consulting, procedural audits, emergency payroll support, and payroll technology services | Payroll administration is a core function of the PEO relationship |
Human Resources | HR consulting, compliance assessments, compensation, organizational effectiveness, fractional HR, talent, and strategic advisory | Ongoing HR support integrated with payroll, benefits, workers’ compensation, compliance, and workforce administration |
HR Technology | Consulting around HCM, payroll, benefits administration, vendor selection, implementation, integration, and optimization | HCM and workforce technology provided as part of the connected PEO environment |
Business Insurance | Major organizational strength across commercial insurance and risk-management services | Employer-risk proposition is more directly focused on workers’ compensation and employment-related risk within the PEO relationship |
Workers’ Compensation | Commercial insurance and risk-management capabilities; also operates a specialized insurance practice serving PEOs and staffing firms | Workers’ compensation through the PEO structure for qualifying clients, with claims, safety, and risk-management support |
PEO Services | Not primarily a direct employer-facing PEO; Gallagher serves PEO organizations and offers PEO-exit advisory services | Direct PEO provider |
Potential Fit | Employers wanting sophisticated benefits, insurance, HR, payroll, technology, or risk services while maintaining a more modular employer infrastructure | Employers wanting payroll, HR, benefits administration, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk, and technology connected through a PEO |
Gallagher’s service model is broader than conventional benefits brokerage. Its Benefits & HR Consulting organization currently includes employee benefits consulting, human resources and organizational effectiveness, compensation, communication, retirement, HR technology, and other workforce services. Gallagher can also manage an employer’s payroll function using the employer’s existing payroll technology platform.
ESI approaches the same employer challenges through a PEO structure. Payroll, HR, employee benefits, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk management, and related technology can operate as connected parts of the employment relationship rather than being purchased and coordinated independently.
Service scope, insurance arrangements, benefits, workers’ compensation eligibility, technology, pricing, contractual responsibilities, and available consulting services can vary by employer and agreement. Employers should verify the specific Gallagher and ESI services being proposed.
A company searching for a Gallagher alternative may be trying to solve several different problems.
The employer may want a different benefits advisor. Leadership may be evaluating commercial insurance. HR could need more hands-on operational support. Payroll may be understaffed. The company could need a new HCM platform, compensation analysis, stronger compliance processes, or help reducing the amount of administrative work falling on internal employees.
Gallagher can address many of those issues independently. Its current services include benefits consulting, HR advisory, fractional HR, managed payroll, HR technology consulting, compensation and rewards consulting, employee communications, and insurance and risk management.
ESI becomes a different type of alternative when leadership concludes the problem is not simply the performance of one advisor or vendor.
The larger issue may be that payroll, HR, benefits, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk, and technology are being managed through too many disconnected relationships.
An employer may have an excellent benefits broker and still experience payroll problems. It may have strong commercial insurance advice but limited HR capacity. It may have capable technology yet still require managers to determine which vendor owns each problem.
That changes the comparison.
If the primary need is specialized benefits, insurance, payroll, or HR expertise, compare specialists. If the deeper problem is fragmented employment administration, compare the PEO model itself.
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., commonly known as Gallagher, was founded in 1927 and has developed into a global insurance brokerage, risk management, and benefits and HR consulting organization. Gallagher’s current website reports more than 95 years in business and operations serving more than 130 countries.
For employers, Benefits & HR Consulting is a major component of Gallagher’s offering. Its consultants work across employee health and benefits, HR strategy, talent, financial wellbeing, compensation, career development, retirement, communication, and other elements of workforce strategy.
Gallagher’s employee benefits practice helps organizations design, implement, and manage benefit programs while addressing cost, workforce productivity, employee education, risk, attraction, and retention.
Its HR capabilities extend beyond benefits. Gallagher provides consulting around HR policies and processes, compliance, organizational effectiveness, compensation, talent, HR assessments, fractional HR, employee relations, and other workforce issues. Its HR compliance assessments can examine onboarding, recruiting practices, I-9 processes, employee records, handbooks, labor-law postings, and employee-relations practices.
Gallagher also provides managed payroll services. Its current offering can manage an employer’s payroll function using the employer’s existing payroll technology and includes short- and long-term payroll support, escalation support, emergency payroll processing, and payroll procedural audits.
Technology represents another significant capability. Gallagher’s Technology and Enrollment Consulting practice helps employers evaluate, implement, and optimize HCM, payroll, and benefits-administration technology, including vendor selection, contract review, implementation, integration, and ongoing system support.
Gallagher is therefore much more than a benefits broker. The important distinction is that its broad capabilities are generally delivered through consulting, brokerage, technology, outsourcing, and risk relationships rather than through the direct PEO model ESI provides.
Many of the individual services offered by Gallagher and a PEO can appear similar. Both may touch employee benefits, HR, payroll, compliance, technology, and risk management, which can make the two models look more interchangeable than they actually are.
The structure behind those services is different. Gallagher can provide individual consulting, brokerage, technology, or outsourced functions around an employer’s existing organization. An employer might retain its current payroll platform while Gallagher helps manage payroll, or engage Gallagher specifically for benefits consulting, compensation, HR strategy, technology, or another specialized need.
A PEO uses co-employment. The client continues operating the business and directing employees day to day, while specified employment-related responsibilities are contractually allocated between the business and the PEO. Those responsibilities can include payroll administration, benefits administration, HR support, workers’ compensation, compliance assistance, and workforce technology.
ESI operates directly through that PEO model. Before comparing individual features, leadership should determine which operating structure it actually wants: specialized services surrounding the existing infrastructure, or a PEO relationship that changes how several key employment responsibilities are administered together.
Employee benefits and human-capital consulting are significant Gallagher strengths. Its capabilities can help employers design and manage benefit programs, evaluate workforce costs, improve employee communication, address compensation and talent issues, assess HR processes, and obtain specialized expertise without necessarily changing the broader employment model.
That modular approach can be especially valuable for employers with capable internal HR teams. One organization may need sophisticated benefits consulting, another may need compensation expertise, and another may want fractional HR leadership or an assessment of existing policies and processes without outsourcing payroll, workers’ compensation, or the broader HR infrastructure.
ESI should not be positioned as superior simply because it is a PEO. The more useful distinction is what happens when benefits and HR issues become recurring operational responsibilities rather than isolated consulting projects.
Benefits interact with payroll deductions, employee records, onboarding, terminations, eligibility, employee questions, and compliance processes. HR issues can affect payroll, leave administration, documentation, benefits, workers’ compensation, and manager decisions at the same time.
Gallagher may help an employer develop a stronger benefits or HR strategy. ESI should demonstrate whether placing those responsibilities inside the same broader PEO relationship as payroll, compliance, workers’ compensation, and workforce administration creates a more consistent operating experience.
Gallagher now has meaningful payroll and HR technology capabilities, so a simplistic comparison that positions Gallagher as a benefits consultant and ESI as the payroll provider would be inaccurate. Gallagher can provide managed payroll support while allowing an employer to retain its existing payroll technology, and its consultants can help organizations select, implement, configure, integrate, and optimize payroll, benefits, and broader HCM systems.
That flexibility can be attractive to employers that want to own their technology strategy. A company may prefer to select best-of-breed platforms independently, maintain existing systems, and use Gallagher for operational or technical expertise rather than place those systems inside a broader outsourcing relationship.
ESI approaches payroll and technology differently because payroll administration and workforce technology are foundational parts of the PEO relationship. Payroll operates alongside HR, benefits administration, workers’ compensation, compliance, and other recurring employer responsibilities rather than functioning primarily as a separately managed system.
The comparison should therefore move beyond payroll processing or software demonstrations. Leadership should examine where employee information originates, who maintains it, how onboarding affects payroll and benefits, who resolves incorrect deductions, how integrations are maintained, and what happens when a technology problem becomes an HR or payroll problem.
For some employers, retaining control over separate payroll and HCM platforms may be preferable. For others, the more important question is whether the internal team has become responsible for connecting too many systems, vendors, and service relationships that could operate more cohesively through a PEO.
Risk management is another area where Gallagher and ESI overlap without providing the same type of relationship. Gallagher is a major insurance brokerage and risk-management organization with expertise across numerous commercial exposures, and it also has specialized experience serving PEO and staffing organizations.
That insurance breadth can be a significant advantage for employers with complex commercial-risk needs. A company may need specialized property, casualty, liability, cyber, workers’ compensation, or industry-specific insurance resources that extend well beyond the typical scope of a PEO relationship.
ESI’s risk proposition is more directly connected to employment administration. For qualifying clients, workers’ compensation can operate through the PEO structure while claims, safety, HR, payroll, compliance, and related workforce processes are coordinated within the broader employer-services relationship.
The relevant question is therefore not which organization can claim stronger “risk management.” Leadership should determine which risks are being addressed, which insurance relationships should remain specialized, how workers’ compensation interacts with HR and payroll, and who takes ownership when an employee issue crosses several employment functions.
Gallagher can bring considerable insurance and advisory depth to the employer. ESI should earn the PEO relationship by demonstrating that employment-related risk, payroll, HR, benefits, compliance, and workforce administration work more effectively when responsibility is connected rather than repeatedly handed from one provider to another.
Gallagher may deserve serious consideration when an employer wants sophisticated advisory capabilities while retaining greater control over the individual components of its HR, benefits, payroll, technology, and risk infrastructure.
Benefits are a clear example. Gallagher has deep resources around benefits planning, program management, employee engagement, communications, compensation, and broader workforce strategy.
Its insurance and risk capabilities can also be particularly attractive when a company’s needs extend far beyond workers’ compensation. Gallagher’s broader risk platform addresses commercial insurance and organizational exposures across numerous industries and markets.
Employers with internal HR teams may also value Gallagher’s ability to fill specific gaps without restructuring the entire employment model. HR assessments, compliance work, fractional HR, compensation consulting, payroll support, and technology consulting can be purchased around an existing internal organization.
Gallagher may also be attractive for an employer that wants to keep ownership of its payroll system while outsourcing some or all of the payroll workload. Its managed payroll model is explicitly designed to work with an employer’s existing technology.
ESI does not need to be the best answer for every company.
If leadership wants best-of-breed advisors, customized consulting engagements, broad commercial-risk expertise, or greater control over individually selected systems and providers, Gallagher deserves consideration.
ESI may deserve closer consideration when leadership is trying to simplify the infrastructure behind employment rather than continue adding resources around it.
A growing business may already have a benefits advisor, payroll system, insurance broker, HR consultant, workers’ compensation provider, HRIS, compliance resources, and internal employees responsible for coordinating them.
Each provider can be competent individually while the overall system remains difficult to manage.
The owner may still be pulled into employee problems. HR may still spend hours reconciling systems. Finance may still coordinate payroll corrections and benefit deductions. Managers may still be unsure whether an issue belongs to payroll, HR, insurance, or another vendor.
ESI’s PEO structure addresses the employer challenge at that level.
Its current offering connects payroll, employee benefits, HR, workers’ compensation, regulatory compliance, risk management, and workforce technology rather than positioning those capabilities only as separate projects or advisory engagements.
The potential value is not simply having more services.
It is reducing the friction between them.
If leadership is spending too much time acting as the integration layer between vendors, the PEO comparison becomes more important than another vendor-by-vendor comparison.
Because Gallagher is highly visible in the employee-benefits market, an employer could easily reduce this decision to health plans, broker relationships, or renewal strategy.
That would be incomplete.
Gallagher’s benefits capabilities are substantial and should be evaluated on their merits. Its consulting practice is built around designing and managing benefits programs while addressing cost, workforce productivity, employee education, risk, attraction, and retention.
But benefits represent only one part of the employer experience.
Payroll still needs to be accurate. New employees need to be onboarded. Managers need HR support. Employee documentation must be maintained. Workers’ compensation claims must be addressed. Compliance obligations need attention. Technology needs to work. Employees need clear answers when several of these areas overlap.
PEOs are specifically structured around this broader employer environment. NAPEO describes a PEO relationship as one that can include payroll processing, payroll-tax administration, benefits administration, HR services, workers’ compensation and claims management, compliance assistance, and HR technology.
Research with business decision makers has also found particular interest in reducing HR and administrative workloads so leadership can focus more attention on running and growing the business.
The benefits plan matters. So does the infrastructure required to make that plan—and the rest of employment administration—work every day.
Gallagher is not simply an outside competitor to the PEO industry.
It participates in the PEO ecosystem.
Gallagher operates a dedicated PEO and Temporary Staffing insurance practice. According to its current materials, the practice supports more than 150 PEO organizations and more than 300 staffing firms across the United States.
Its HR Advisory practice also offers PEO exit services. Gallagher describes leaving a PEO as a potentially complex transition requiring planning and coordination so HR services continue while new vendors and systems are established.
That is important context.
Gallagher’s PEO-exit capability should not automatically be treated as evidence that a PEO is a poor model.
It shows something more practical: an employer’s preferred employment infrastructure can change.
A business may reach a point where it has the internal HR capacity, leadership resources, benefits strategy, payroll expertise, technology environment, and scale to unbundle services and take more ownership internally.
Another business may experience the opposite problem. Growth may have created enough payroll, HR, benefits, risk, and compliance complexity that continuing to manage each responsibility independently no longer makes sense.
The relevant question is not whether a PEO is universally better or worse. It is whether the PEO structure fits the employer’s current operating requirements.
Moving from Gallagher to ESI begins by identifying exactly which Gallagher services the employer currently uses.
There may not be a single “Gallagher relationship” to replace.
Gallagher could be the benefits broker. It could provide commercial insurance. The company may use Gallagher for managed payroll, fractional HR, compensation consulting, HR technology, employee communications, or several of those functions at once.
The next step is to map the remainder of the employment infrastructure.
Who owns payroll today? Who administers benefits eligibility? Who supports employee relations? Who manages workers’ compensation? Who handles safety? Which company provides the HRIS? Who monitors employment requirements? Where do managers go for support? How many vendors, contracts, invoices, renewals, integrations, and escalation paths does the employer manage?
Then determine what would actually move into the ESI PEO relationship.
The transition could involve employee census information, payroll history, payroll-tax data, benefits information, workers’ compensation details, HR documentation, employee records, technology configuration, and onboarding requirements. ESI’s own proposal process reflects the importance of information such as payroll, employee classifications, workers’ compensation history, group medical coverage, states of operation, and the services an employer is evaluating.
Not every Gallagher relationship necessarily needs to disappear.
Depending on the employer’s needs, contractual requirements, coverage arrangements, and ESI proposal, specialized insurance or consulting relationships could remain valuable outside the PEO.
The objective is not to replace Gallagher everywhere. The objective is to determine which employment responsibilities ESI should own, which outside relationships still create value, and whether the resulting structure is measurably better than what exists today.
Gallagher is not primarily positioned as a direct Professional Employer Organization for employers. Its principal businesses include insurance brokerage, risk management, employee benefits consulting, HR consulting, payroll services, HR technology, and other workforce advisory capabilities.
Gallagher does have substantial involvement with the PEO industry. Its specialized insurance practice serves PEOs and temporary staffing firms, while its HR advisory practice provides PEO-exit support for employers transitioning away from a PEO.
ESI differs because ESI enters into the PEO relationship directly.
Gallagher provides a broad range of services involving employee benefits, HR consulting, compensation and rewards, HR technology, managed payroll, retirement, employee communications, insurance, and risk management.
The exact relationship can therefore vary significantly from one employer to another. One organization may primarily use Gallagher as its employee-benefits advisor, while another may engage Gallagher for payroll, HR consulting, technology, commercial insurance, or several services simultaneously.
The best Gallagher alternative depends on the problem the employer is trying to solve.
Companies seeking a different commercial insurance advisor should compare insurance brokers. Employers primarily dissatisfied with benefits strategy should compare employee-benefits consultants. Organizations seeking compensation, HR technology, or specialized HR projects may want comparable consulting firms.
ESI becomes more relevant when the company wants to evaluate a different employment operating model altogether.
If leadership wants payroll, HR, employee benefits administration, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk management, and workforce technology connected through a direct PEO relationship, ESI represents a different type of Gallagher alternative.
The biggest difference is the relationship structure.
Gallagher primarily provides brokerage, consulting, managed-service, technology, and risk-management solutions. Employers can engage specific Gallagher capabilities while continuing to maintain and coordinate much of their existing employment infrastructure.
ESI is a PEO. Its model brings payroll, HR, employee benefits, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk management, and related workforce technology into a co-employment relationship.
Gallagher can supplement and strengthen an employer’s existing infrastructure. ESI can restructure how significant portions of that infrastructure are delivered.
Not automatically.
Employers with strong internal HR, payroll, finance, benefits, and risk teams may prefer a modular model. Specialized Gallagher consultants can support particular challenges while the organization retains internal control over the underlying infrastructure.
A PEO may become more attractive when the employer wants to reduce internal administration, improve coordination among employment functions, obtain ongoing HR resources, or consolidate responsibilities that are currently spread across multiple providers.
The better decision depends on what the employer wants to continue managing internally and what it wants a partner to own.
Yes. Employee Benefits Consulting is a major Gallagher service. Its Benefits Consulting practice helps employers design, implement, and manage benefits programs while addressing costs, workforce productivity, employee education, risk, attraction, and retention.
Gallagher’s broader Benefits & HR Consulting organization also addresses HR, technology, compensation, communication, retirement, and other workforce issues.
Employers comparing Gallagher with ESI should distinguish benefits consulting from benefits administration inside a PEO relationship. Both can create value, but they solve different operational problems.
Yes. Gallagher currently offers managed payroll services and can manage an employer’s payroll function using the employer’s existing payroll technology platform. It also provides temporary or ongoing payroll support, escalation assistance, emergency payroll processing, payroll audits, and related technology expertise.
That makes Gallagher more than an employee-benefits and HR consultancy.
The distinction from ESI is that payroll at ESI is a core component of the broader PEO structure rather than necessarily a standalone managed service.
Gallagher is a major insurance and risk-management organization and provides commercial insurance and risk solutions across numerous industries. It also operates a specialized insurance practice serving PEOs and temporary staffing companies.
ESI’s workers’ compensation proposition operates differently. For qualifying PEO clients, ESI states that workers’ compensation coverage is provided through the PEO’s master policy, with centralized policy administration, claims support, and compliance processes.
Employers should compare both the insurance arrangement and the operational support surrounding claims, safety, HR, and risk.
Employers should compare total economics, not one visible fee.
A Gallagher relationship may involve separate costs for benefits brokerage or consulting, commercial insurance, HR services, managed payroll, technology, compensation consulting, and other services depending on the employer’s arrangement.
A PEO fee must also be evaluated in context. ESI states that its PEO pricing can include payroll processing, tax management, employee benefits administration, HR compliance, and risk management, with employer-specific services and insurance products affecting the final cost.
A useful analysis should include outside vendor fees, payroll costs, HR resources, HR technology, benefits administration, workers’ compensation, compliance resources, and the internal labor required to coordinate everything.
The lowest individual vendor fee does not necessarily produce the lowest-cost employment infrastructure.
Potentially, yes.
Because Gallagher and ESI do not operate identical business models, an employer may determine that certain Gallagher relationships continue to create value even after entering a PEO arrangement.
For example, Gallagher has significant commercial insurance and specialized consulting capabilities beyond the core employment responsibilities of a PEO.
Whether a particular Gallagher service can or should remain in place depends on the ESI agreement, insurance arrangements, benefits structure, existing contracts, and the specific responsibilities being transferred.
The goal should not be unnecessary consolidation. The goal should be clear ownership, fewer gaps, and an employment infrastructure that works better for leadership and employees.
Gallagher is a substantial global organization with meaningful strengths across employee benefits, HR consulting, payroll, HR technology, compensation, communication, insurance, and risk management. Its employer-services capabilities extend well beyond a conventional employee-benefits brokerage relationship.
Those strengths should not be minimized in a credible comparison.
Gallagher may be the stronger choice for employers that want specialized consulting, broad commercial insurance expertise, sophisticated employee-benefits strategy, independent HR technology guidance, managed payroll around an existing system, or modular services that complement a capable internal organization.
ESI solves another employer problem.
Its PEO model connects payroll, HR, employee benefits, workers’ compensation, regulatory compliance, risk management, and workforce technology through a direct PEO relationship.
For an employer evaluating these two approaches, the decision should therefore go beyond provider reputation or feature count.
Ask how much employment infrastructure leadership wants to own internally. Determine how much time employees spend coordinating vendors. Identify where payroll, HR, benefits, technology, workers’ compensation, and compliance responsibilities overlap. Determine what happens when something goes wrong and several providers could theoretically own the problem.
Then ask which model creates clearer accountability.
Gallagher can earn its place through specialized benefits, HR, payroll, technology, insurance, and risk expertise. ESI should earn the PEO relationship by demonstrating that connected employment administration, responsive support, risk resources, and clearer service ownership create a measurable improvement for the employer.
Get a Side-by-Side Gallagher and PEO Comparison
If you are researching Gallagher alternatives, Gallagher competitors, Arthur J. Gallagher competitors, Gallagher Benefit Services alternatives, Gallagher employee benefits alternatives, Gallagher HR consulting alternatives, Gallagher payroll alternatives, Gallagher PEO alternatives, PEO vs. benefits broker, or HR consulting vs. PEO, begin with the employer’s current infrastructure rather than a generic service checklist.
Identify who owns payroll, employee benefits, HR, workers’ compensation, compliance, risk management, and workforce technology today.
Determine what is working well, where internal employees are compensating for gaps, how many outside providers leadership is coordinating, and which responsibilities would actually improve if they were connected through a PEO.
Then compare service ownership, HR expertise, benefits strategy, benefits administration, payroll, workers’ compensation, compliance support, risk management, technology, implementation requirements, internal workload, contract structure, and total economics.
Trademark and Comparison Disclaimer:
Gallagher, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Gallagher Benefit Services, and other company or product names are the property of their respective owners. This comparison is provided for educational purposes and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Gallagher. Service offerings, insurance arrangements, benefits programs, HR consulting services, payroll services, technology solutions, pricing, workers’ compensation arrangements, and contractual responsibilities may change and can vary by employer, location, and agreement. Employers should review current written proposals, insurance policies, contracts, and service agreements before making a purchasing decision.
Still doing your own payroll? Tasks involved with Payroll and Employee Administration are purely transactional events.
At eESI, our business is all about assisting with the management of any organization’s most valuable resource: people.
A benefit package can be a major incentive to lure the best new talent to your workforce and keep your current employees happy.
Risk is a basic part of business. As a co-employer we work to eliminate, mitigate or share your associated legal liabilities.
eESI continuously utilizes the latest in technological advances through online and mobile solutions to make your life easier.
Still doing your own payroll? Tasks involved with Payroll and Employee Administration are purely transactional events.
At ESI, our business is all about assisting with the management of any organization’s most valuable resource: people.
A benefit package can be a major incentive to lure the best new talent to your workforce and keep your current employees happy.
Risk is a basic part of business. As a co-employer we work to eliminate, mitigate or share your associated legal liabilities.
ESI continuously utilizes the latest in technological advances through online and mobile solutions to make your life easier.
