Insurance, by popular understanding, hedges against the risk of contingent loss. By varying pricing based on operations, materials, and design, insurance serves as a nudge to encourage lower risk profiles. In theory at least. We’ll leave unresolved questions about whether this risk reduction is always well reasoned or if you really get better pricing through these changes.

So it was unsurprising to read in Ceres’ new report “Risk to Opportunity” that insurers are moving from superficial PR “towards [thinking] more deeply and strategically institutionalized and embedded in the operations of companies.”

Climate change is becoming recognized as an issue of Enterprise Risk Management, spanning underwriting, asset management, and corporate governance.

One of the most constructive developments is more products and services focused on ensuring the quality of the customer’s energy or carbon savings efforts. These include performance insurance for renewable energy systems, coverage for green buildings that don’t deliver promised performance, and products that apply to carbon offset and trading activities. In all cases, loss-prevention takes the form of due-diligence, scrutiny of engineering assumptions, preventive maintenance, commissioning, measurement and verification, and other constructive interventions to help ensure project integrity and success.

Although released in April 2009, the report covers products existing or introduced in 2008. In many ways, the finding that some insurers were moving much faster than others led to the March 2009 action by state insurance commissioners to require that insurers reveal exposures and responses to climate change. How this will be enforced and what the ‘right’ answers are will be revealed when the responses are provided in March 2010.

[Note: The quote above was taken from an interview with study author Evan Mills with Climate and Insurance.org, an arm of industry advocate NAMIC, which does not like (really doesn't like) the new climate exposure mandate. Ceres retorts that "Insurance trade organizations remain relatively disengaged on climate change." Plus ça change, I suppose.]

Why does this matter? Because outside of government and its multiple layers, insurers and financial firms are best positioned to promote the systemic change in the built environment needed to achieve goals like Net Zero Energy, Architecture 2030, or multi-family specific programs like Greener Communities.

Insurers are perfectly placed to make the case for unifying “green” and “disaster-resilient”
practices across many domains (construction, energy, agriculture, land use), yet scant effort has
been exerted in this regard. It will become increasingly incumbent on insurers to demonstrate
the loss-reducing benefits of the green technologies and services that they reward. Loss-prone
infrastructure cannot be truly “sustainable”.

It’s worth recalling this recommendation from “Resilient Coasts”:

“Wise investing will involve asset managers understanding the impacts of climate change on their investments and managing that risk, especially in real estate, infrastructure and other financial instruments. Responsible banks will need to understand the levels of exposure within their investment and lending portfolios by incorporating climate risks into their due diligence.”

Change is coming in a thousand different ways from code changes, insurance, finance, builders, housing agencies, governments, and most importantly, residents. We’ll start addressing the financial world in short order.