On a rainy morning in July 2025, a senior executive at a European manufacturing conglomerate logged into Allianz's Climate Adaptation & Resilience Services platform. Within minutes, she received a detailed forecast: her company's Vietnamese supplier faced a 340% increase in flood risk by 2050, with potential supply chain disruptions costing €47 million annually. The system recommended specific adaptation interventions—elevated warehousing, alternative sourcing, and business continuity redesign. What she did not receive, notably, was an insurance quote. This, Allianz explained, was "pure advisory”—adaptation as a service, unbundled from risk transfer.

This vignette captures an existential transformation reshaping the global insurance industry. Confronted with climate losses that have rendered traditional underwriting models obsolete, insurers are pivoting from passive risk-takers to active resilience architects.

The numbers explain the urgency. Global insured catastrophe losses reached $154 billion in 2024, 27% above the ten-year average. In Florida, home insurance premiums have risen 300% since 2020, while in California, major insurers have withdrawn from fire-prone counties entirely. The old model—pooling diversified risks across stable geographies—has broken down. Climate change has introduced "deep uncertainty" where historical data loses predictive power, invalidating the stationary risk distributions that underpin actuarial science.​

Faced with this reality, leading reinsurers have begun to diversify and mitigate their own business risk. Zurich Resilience Solutions (ZRS), launched in 2023, offers climate risk assessments that leverage 150 years of customer loss data and 75 years of risk engineering expertise. Munich Re's Location Risk Intelligence Platform provides forward-looking climate data across four emission scenarios through 2100, scoring hazards for individual locations. Allianz's CAReS platform translates physical climate risks into financial loss metrics across four time horizons.​

These services are not loss-leaders for insurance sales. They represent distinct revenue streams, often priced as SaaS subscriptions or consulting engagements. Zurich explicitly markets ZRS as going "far beyond providing climate data", offering "practical recommendations and ongoing consultation". Munich Re's platform operates on a freemium model, with Business, Corporate, and Enterprise tiers scaling from basic hazard scoring to advanced climate change expert modules.​

This transformation reframes the insurer's core value proposition. For two centuries, the industry's moat was its balance sheet—the capacity to absorb losses that others could not. Today, that advantage has become a liability. Capital adequacy ratios designed for diversifiable risks are under strain. The real scarcity is not capital but foresight.

Consider the economics. Traditional property insurance generates 8% EBITDA margins in competitive markets. Adaptation consulting delivers 25% margins, according to industry analysts, with lower capital requirements and minimal regulatory burden. More importantly, data services create network effects: each client assessment improves the underlying models, generating proprietary insights that competitors cannot replicate.​

Munich Re's Location Risk Intelligence Platform illustrates this dynamic. The system integrates ICEYE's satellite-based flood monitoring, providing real-time risk assessments before, during, and after events. This creates a feedback loop: flood data improves models, models attract clients, and clients generate more data. The platform now serves banks, real estate developers, and corporations beyond insurance, transforming Munich Re from a risk carrier into a risk intelligence utility.​

Swiss Re Institute's research reinforces the business case. Their 2024 ‘Resilience or Rebuild?’ report demonstrates that flood adaptation interventions deliver benefit-to-cost ratios between 2:1 and 10:1. When insurers can quantify these returns, they shift from selling protection against failure to selling investment in success. The value migrates from the balance sheet to the data sheet.​

Yet this transformation introduces a fundamental tension. When the entity assessing risk also profits from selling solutions, incentives misalign. If Zurich Resilience Solutions identifies a client's facility as ‘high risk’, it can simultaneously recommend expensive adaptations and advise Zurich Insurance to raise premiums or withdraw capacity. The insurer becomes judge, jury, and—potentially—executioner.

This is not theoretical. Allianz's CAReS platform explicitly links risk assessment to underwriting: "Our experts go far beyond providing climate data, helping you to take a pragmatic approach to climate risk management and adapting your operations to climate change, in alignment with your climate resilience strategy and climate risk reporting goals". The same experts advising clients on resilience may be advising underwriters on pricing.​

The conflict intensifies with proprietary models. Munich Re's NATHAN risk scores and climate scenarios are developed internally, with methodologies that remain commercially confidential. When a client disputes a ‘high risk’ classification, they face an opaque appeals process against an algorithm trained on data they cannot inspect. This asymmetry recalls the conflicts of credit rating agencies before the financial crisis—except now the rated entity pays for the rating and buys the recommended solution.​

Regulators have begun to notice. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority's 2025 Adaptation Report explicitly flags "changes to insurance and loan underwriting practice" as requiring enhanced supervision. The Prudential Regulation Authority's climate scenario testing now examines whether insurers' advisory services create "adverse selection loops" where high-risk clients are identified, charged more, and thus incentivised to self-insure.​

The insurance industry's adaptation pivot is both necessary and fraught. Necessary because traditional risk transfer is failing under climate change's non-stationary impacts. Fraught because the same information asymmetries that made insurers valuable—superior risk knowledge—now enable potential exploitation.

Three safeguards emerge. First, regulatory firewalls: The PRA's 2025 consultation on separating advisory from underwriting functions within insurer groups, modelled on investment banking reforms. Second, open-source standards: UNEP FI's Climate Risk Landscape Report provides public-domain risk tools that reduce reliance on proprietary models. Third, client education: As corporations build internal climate expertise, they can challenge insurer assessments, creating market discipline.​

The deeper question is whether insurers can truly serve two masters: shareholders seeking quarterly returns and society needing multi-decade resilience. The adaptation-as-a-service model generates higher margins and lower volatility, aligning with fiduciary duties. But it also concentrates power—over risk definitions, adaptation pathways, and insurability itself—in entities accountable only to capital markets.

In 2026, an insurer's value may indeed lie more in its data sheet than its balance sheet. But data is only as objective as the incentives shaping its collection and interpretation. Without robust governance, the industry risks transforming from climate victim to climate villain—profiting from the very uncertainty it claims to resolve. The identity crisis is real. Whether it resolves into genuine resilience architecture or sophisticated rent-seeking will define insurance's social license for the climate era.

Know someone interested in adapting to a warmer world? Share Liveable with someone who should be in the know.

Or copy and paste this link to share with others: https://research.liveable.world/subscribe