The Awareness–Action Gap at Insurance Renewal
A growing number of businesses can identify their physical climate exposures, yet few are equipped to show their insurer what they are doing about them. Yvonne Moore of Zurich Resilience Solutions argues that this gap between awareness and action is what now separates companies that hold on to affordable cover from those that do not. The challenge, she says, is rarely awareness; it is turning that understanding into a funded programme that survives the budgeting and planning cycles of a typical organisation.
Moore points to a structural mismatch: resilience creates value over long time horizons, but most corporate decision-making is still tethered to annual budgets and insurance renewal cycles. The business case can be difficult to prove because the return on investment often materialises over several years and is hard to quantify. In that vacuum, the potential cost of inaction—the exposure sitting on the company’s own balance sheet—becomes the most compelling argument. Global economic losses from natural disasters reached US$318 billion in 2024, of which 57% were uninsured, according to Swiss Re’s sigma 1/2025 report.
For insurers, the picture is shifting. Moore notes that the whole sector is moving away from simply indemnifying losses after the fact towards prevention. An insurer reviewing a proactive client is assessing a different risk from one confronted with a history of losses and no forward plan. Showing that future risks are understood, prioritised and actively managed changes the underwriting conversation—away from past losses and towards demonstrable risk reduction.
Structural Barriers and the Underwriting Shift
Why the Budget Cycle Undermines Resilience Investment
Moore’s diagnosis is structural rather than attitudinal. Resilience competes for capital against projects with more immediate returns, and because the benefits are often avoided future costs rather than immediate revenue, the business case can stall. Adding to the difficulty, resilience does not belong to a single function—it cuts across risk, operations, sustainability, property, procurement and finance—and getting those teams to align priorities is rarely a single person’s remit. The consequence is that many organisations remain stuck at the risk-mapping stage while their insurance renewal approaches.
How Proactive Clients Reshape Underwriting Conversations
When a company can present an active, funded adaptation plan, the underwriting evaluation changes. Moore explains that the conversation shifts from a backward-looking review of losses to a forward-looking assessment of how the business is reducing future risk. That shift strengthens underwriting confidence and supports long-term insurability. It also distinguishes such clients in a market where capacity for poorly managed climate exposures is narrowing. The practical effect is not just better renewal terms, but a more durable position in a hardening insurance environment.
The Uninsured Hole on Corporate Balance Sheets
The Swiss Re data underscores the economic backdrop: US$318 billion in global disaster losses, with nearly three-fifths uninsured. For a business weighing a resilience investment against a single renewal cycle, the uninsured portion represents the direct exposure it is already carrying. Moore’s argument is that closing the protection gap requires businesses, insurers and governments to each play their part, but businesses control the underlying risk—neither an insurer nor a policymaker can strengthen a building or redesign a supply chain on a company’s behalf. That control makes corporate inaction the most immediate driver of the insurability gap.
Steps for Risk Managers to Secure Long-Term Insurability
Based on Moore’s recommendations and the data, risk managers and corporate leaders can take several concrete steps:
- Start the conversation now. Do not wait for the renewal cycle. Speak to your insurer on an ongoing basis and ask whether broader risk advisory services are available beyond placement.
- Embed adaptation into everyday business decisions. Frame climate resilience as part of existing capital upgrades, maintenance programmes, refurbishment cycles and supply chain reviews, rather than as a separate, costly initiative.
- Build a repeatable process for demonstrating progress. The goal is not perfect prediction but a credible, documented approach to identifying vulnerabilities, prioritising adaptation and showing incremental improvements to underwriters.
- Quantify the cost of inaction. Use industry loss data (such as the 57% uninsured portion of the US$318 billion in 2024 disaster losses) alongside your own exposure figures to strengthen the internal business case for resilience spending.
- Align cross-functional ownership. Bring risk, operations, property, procurement and finance together to create a unified resilience programme that can be presented coherently to insurers.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | High | Failure to present a funded resilience plan can lead to higher premiums, reduced capacity or loss of cover, as insurers increasingly distinguish between proactive and reactive clients. |
| Competitive Risk | Medium | Companies with demonstrable adaptation programmes may secure better insurance terms, creating a cost advantage over peers that neglect climate resilience. |
| Regulatory Risk | Medium | Evolving climate disclosure mandates (e.g., TCFD, CSRD) could force companies to publicly report their resilience gaps, attracting regulatory scrutiny and legal exposure if efforts are inadequate. |
| Reputation Risk | High | An uninsured natural disaster loss without a prior plan can damage stakeholder trust, whereas proactive communication about risk reduction bolsters brand resilience. |
| Technology Disruption | Low | The core obstacle is organisational and decision-making structures, not a lack of technology; no specific tech breakthrough is poised to resolve the annual-budget mismatch described by Moore. |
| Commercial Opportunity | High | Businesses that embed resilience into routine operations can negotiate better coverage, lower their total cost of risk, and access insurers’ advisory services as the sector shifts toward preventive models. |
Comments 0