Survey findings
5. Infrastructure resilience for sustainable growth
This section focuses on the resilience of companies’ value chains to climate-related factors from both physical and transition perspectives. More specifically, it examines how mitigation and adaptation plans are incorporated into strategic priorities, the types of initiatives adopted, and how companies address them, both in terms of understanding the associated risk implications and of identifying the actions needed to manage the transition.
Key takeaway:
Climate transition and physical risks are increasingly assessed using quantitative scenario approaches, but structured mitigation and adaptation plans are not yet widely in place.
Climate mitigation and adaptation show similar levels of maturity. More than 60% of respondents have conducted quantitative scenario analyses, but only one-third have defined adaptation and mitigation plans, with mitigation generally showing slightly higher shares. Qualitative evaluations are more prevalent among non-listed companies (above 35%) and among companies with revenue below €1 billion (35%, rising to more than 50% for companies with revenue below €500 million).
To what extent has your organisation integrated physical climate risk and adaptation (asset/operational resilience) into strategic planning and capital allocation?
To what extent has your organisation integrated transition climate risk and mitigation (policy, market, technology, reputational) into strategic planning and targets?
The most common initiatives focus on electrification and energy efficiency, renewables, on-site energy generation, and process transformation to reduce direct emissions. In sectors such as food and agriculture, logistics, and fashion, supply chain decarbonisation is also relevant. Mobility respondents most frequently cite investments in the physical resilience of operations, such as flood defences and cooling. Financial services organisations, given the nature of their business, also cite portfolio optimisation and reallocation as initiatives. Overall, the focus of European corporates’ investments appears to be more on mitigation than adaptation. The share of respondents who report active investments in climate adaptation and resilience appears relatively low (11% for owned assets, 8% for supply chains). It contrasts with the growing physical risk exposure European corporates face.
Which dedicated investments has your organisation allocated for climate mitigation or adaptation?
Electrification and energy efficiency
Renewables/on-site generation
Process transformation to reduce direct emissions
Decarbonisation of supply chain
Investments in physical resilience of operations (flood defences, cooling)
Carbon removal/CCS
Supply chain resilience to climate impacts
Other alternative energy sources (e.g., hydrogen)
Source: Marsh
More than 60% of respondents have conducted quantitative scenario analyses, but only one-third have defined adaptation and mitigation plans.
If you selected any investments above, which best describes your approach to analysing risks and the effect of those initiatives on the company’s medium-term risk profile?
Structured analysis of project risks as well as analysis of the repercussions on the company’s risk profile in the medium-term
Structured project risk analysis
Unstructured risk analysis on an adhoc basis
No risk analysis related to new investments/initiatives
Source: Marsh
With respect to transition specifically, the most common readiness measures focus on strengthening internal capabilities and on long-term collaborations with suppliers and strategic partners.
Regarding the risks potentially triggered by mitigation and adaptation initiatives, 28% of respondents have implemented approaches to analyse them and their implications for the company’s medium-term risk profile, and one-third have defined ad hoc project risk management approaches. Differences emerge between listed and non-listed entities, with the latter exhibiting a greater degree of unstructured, ad hoc analysis. Size also appears to be a maturity driver.
Which readiness measures has your organisation implemented for the energy transition?
Enhanced internal capabilities (training, hires, R&D)
Long-term collaborations with suppliers and strategic partners
Enhancement of mitigation solutions (e.g. dedicated insurance transfer mechanisms, adaptation of existing insurance strategies)
Public private partnerships/industry initiatives
Capital planning for transition finance (e.g. sustainability-linked bonds)
Source: Marsh
Overall, the share of respondents who have actively assessed these issues is relatively high. This has been facilitated by regulation (such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive). The action following these assessments does not appear to be fully structured and may reflect a change in sentiment towards sustainability in Europe and beyond. Amid the current global uncertainty, this can be understood, but the unchanged EU medium-to-long-term decarbonisation goals and empirical evidence of deteriorating physical risk suggest maintaining a focus on strategic resilience. In this context, the survey highlights room for improvement for public and private partnerships and transition finance as levers to support mitigation and adaptation.
Enabling the transition
Early and effective risk management is essential to unlocking financing and ensuring smooth project delivery, especially for complex energy transition programmes such as carbon capture and storage, biofuels, renewable energy, battery energy storage systems, and ammonia projects delivered through multiple contractors and suppliers. An end-to-end risk universe must be mapped, clarifying interfaces and handover points, and stress-testing contractual responsibilities to reduce the triggers for disputes and claims. These insights must be translated into practical controls and tender-ready recommendations that strengthen insurability, with a specific focus on exposures most likely to create coverage disputes.
These include interface ambiguity, long‑lead equipment, logistics and storage, and high‑risk testing and commissioning activities. This approach improves the company’s ability to make defensible risk decisions, reduce potential coverage gaps between owner, contractor, and supplier arrangements, and create a stronger basis for insurance programme design and subsequent market engagement.