Organizations are living in a world today where reorganization is a prerequisite for their survival and adaption to the changes demand in the society. During this process, employees’ learning in the workplace is critical for the progress of both employees and organizations, thus organizations are required to create the proper learning opportunities that promote employees’ learning which is not as easy to implement as planning. The aim of this study is to contribute the knowledge increase about the insurance agents’ learning conditions in connection with the reorganization that caused the new tasks for the insurance agents in The Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Based on the purpose of this study, there are two questions which needs to be asked:1) What activities do managers employ to promote the insurance agents’ learning and what are the challenges that the managers may face during this process?, 2) What can promote and limit the insurance agents' learning? A qualitative case study was performed based on 12 semi-structured interviews with the managers, insurance specialists and insurance agents at Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The collected data has been analyzed through a thematic analysis base on the theoretical framework; adaptive- and developmental learning, performance-oriented and development-oriented leadership, which is built on productive- and developmental logic. The result of the study shows that managers apply activities such as planned and partially planned activities as well as spontaneous activities to promote insurance agents' learning. Depending on the perspective, the insurance agents’ learning is promoted or limited in different situations. This study demonstrates the following learning conditions for the insurance agents’ learning; 1) design of work tasks; 2) management’s support; 3) specify goals and plans; 4) supporting documents; 5) enough time and space to learn; 6) training and internal collaboration; and 7) insurance agents’ competence andcommitments. The conclusion shows that both an adaptive- and a developmental learning exists and there is a dominance of the logic of development and production. A further conclusion is that the implementation of reorganization creates an opportunity for developmental learning with focus on the development logic. Thus, the reorganization promotes the insurance agent’s developmental although the organization shows interest towards adaptive learning with the focus on the logic of production. The summary of this study shows that there is a need of balance between the both logics of leaning (development and production) along with maintaining the balance between the adaptive- and development learning in order to promote the insurance agents’ learning.

The main aim of the master´s thesis is the analysis of the activities of insurance brokers in terms of adhering to the principles of business ethics in the Insurance practice. Using the questionnaire will found attitudes clients insurance brokers to the issue and still views and opinions of the insurance brokers. The result will be the proposals for streamlining and improvement of intermediary activities in insuracance for company ABC, as and FAOL, a.s. and recommendation for itself Insurance Brokers.

進入二十一世紀的第二個十年以來，科技進步推動中國大陸互聯網經濟快速發展，也使得「互聯網+保險」這一商業模式逐漸進入人們的生活。然而在實際運行過程中，中國大陸保險法第17條規定之保險人說明義務並未能在互聯網平台得到很好的實施。實務中，無論是保險公司自營平台或第三方平台，其說明義務履行均未達到保險法、司法解釋以及相關行政法規之要求。 說明義務之立法目的在於糾正保險人與要保人之間的信息偏在，但實際履行中成本過高。而互聯網保險，尤其是其中的O2O保險碎片化、快捷化、小額化之特點，使得該制度的缺點進一步被放大。所以立法應當廢止現行說明義務規範，參酌其他國家或地區立法，代之以信息提供義務。 其中台灣雖然規定有信息提供義務類似規範，但義務違反之責任仍有缺陷。相較之下，本文建議參考德國保險法與歐盟相關指令進行立法，除信息提供義務之外，增訂承保範圍不一致警示義務、要保人撤銷權與商品資訊書相關規範。 中國大陸有大量保險於第三方平台上銷售，相較於保險公司自營平台，第三方平台對於說明義務履行狀況更加令人堪憂，然而卻極少有平台因此而對保險消費者承擔責任。本文認為，在消費領域雖然第三方平台註冊身份有保險代理人與保險經紀人之分，但考量實務運行情況，現階段宜將其統一認定為保險人之代理人。第三方平台作為保險代理人在義務履行有過錯時，仍應因其侵犯保險消費者資訊權之行為，向保險消費者承擔侵權責任。 / From 2010s, scientific and technological evolution promotes the rapid development of Internet economy in Mainland China, and makes the "Internet + insurance" business model become reality. However, the representation duty clause from Article 17 of Insurance Law, does not operate well especially on the Internet. In practice, the explanation on neither the insurance company's own platform nor third-party platform could meet the requests of the insurance law, judicial interpretation and the relevant administrative regulations. The purpose of the representation duty is to correct the information asymmetry between the insurer and the insured, but actually the cost is too high. And the features of internet insurance, especially those O2O insurance, such as, fragmentation, small amount and quickness, make the situation even worse. Therefore, the legislation should abolish the existing obligation of representation duty, and imitate the legislation of advanced countries, to replace it with duty of providing pre-contractual information. Among those countries or districts, although Taiwan has similar regulations to those in Germany and European Union, it is a pity that it has shortcomings in terms of responsibility. Thus, China should follow the German Insurance Law and European directives to amend the law, add the duty of warning about inconsistencies in the cover clause, withdraw right clause and information sheet clause, in addition to duty of providing pre-contractual information clause. In Mainland China , there is a large number of insurance products sold on third-party platforms. Compared to insurance companies’ own platforms, the situation on third-party platforms is even more worrying. However it is disappointing that few third-party platforms take their responsibility towards their consumers. As far as I am concerned, although third-party platforms can be registered as insurance agents or insurance brokers, for now they should be identified as insurers’ agents considering the actual situation when the insured is a consumer. When a third-party platform makes a mistake at work as an insurance agent, it can not be exempted from its identity. On the contrary, the third party platform shall bear the tort liability to the consumer for its behavior of violating consumers’ information rights.