Case study: Flood, drought & wildfire resilience — A startup-to-enterprise scale story

In 2024, natural disasters caused between $320 billion and $417 billion in global economic losses, with floods, wildfires, and severe storms driving 57% of total damages. The Los Angeles wildfires of January 2025 became the costliest wildfire event in history at $53 billion—nearly double the previous record. For businesses navigating this escalating risk landscape, the journey from recognizing climate vulnerability to implementing enterprise-scale resilience programs has become a defining challenge of corporate strategy.

This case study examines how organizations have successfully scaled climate resilience capabilities, drawing lessons from pioneering technology platforms and established risk management leaders who have charted the path from startup experimentation to enterprise-grade solutions.

Why It Matters

The protection gap between total economic losses and insured coverage remains stark. In 2024, 63% of global climate disaster losses—approximately $263 billion—went uninsured. This gap represents both catastrophic business risk and market opportunity for organizations that can accurately quantify and mitigate physical climate threats.

The business case for climate resilience has never been clearer. According to FM Global's research, every $1 spent on hurricane protection reduces loss exposure costs by an average of $105. Countries ranking in the top 50 of the FM Global Resilience Index recover over 30% faster from property losses than lower-ranked locations. For enterprises with distributed global operations, supply chains spanning multiple climate zones, and facilities worth billions, the difference between proactive resilience and reactive recovery can determine competitive survival.

The regulatory environment is also intensifying pressure. TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures), CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), and EU Taxonomy requirements now mandate climate risk disclosure, transforming what was once voluntary best practice into compliance necessity.

Key Concepts

Resilience Frameworks

Modern climate resilience operates across three interconnected domains. Hazard identification maps the probability and intensity of climate events—floods, droughts, wildfires, extreme heat—across time horizons from immediate to 50+ years. Vulnerability assessment examines how specific assets, operations, and supply chains would respond to those hazards. Adaptive capacity measures an organization's ability to anticipate, absorb, and recover from climate shocks.

Enterprise resilience frameworks distinguish between direct risks (physical damage to owned facilities) and outside-the-fence risks (cascading failures from infrastructure dependencies like power grids, transportation networks, and supplier operations). The latter often exceeds direct exposure but remains invisible in traditional risk assessments.

Risk Assessment Evolution

Climate risk analytics has evolved through three generations. First-generation tools provided broad geographic hazard maps based on historical data. Second-generation platforms introduced forward-looking climate scenarios (RCP pathways, SSP scenarios) with regional projections. Third-generation systems—now deployed by leading enterprises—deliver hyper-local analysis at 90-meter resolution, quantifying financial impact in terms of business interruption days, recovery costs, and asset value adjustments.

Adaptation Strategies

Effective adaptation strategies layer multiple interventions. Physical hardening includes flood barriers, fire-resistant materials, and reinforced structures. Operational flexibility encompasses diversified supply chains, distributed operations, and business continuity protocols. Financial resilience involves insurance optimization, capital reserves, and contingent financing. The most sophisticated programs integrate all three, using analytics to prioritize investments by risk-adjusted return.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

AI-powered precision modeling has transformed climate risk from actuarial estimation to engineering-grade prediction. Platforms processing trillions of data points can now differentiate individual properties by real-world vulnerabilities rather than generic zip-code assessments. This precision enables targeted capital allocation—hardening the facilities that matter most while avoiding over-investment in lower-risk assets.

Time-based risk metrics have proven more actionable than probability-based assessments. Measuring climate risk in terms of expected downtime days and recovery hours translates abstract hazard scores into operational planning parameters that procurement, operations, and finance teams can act upon.

Premium incentive programs accelerate adoption by aligning insurance economics with resilience investment. When clients receive 5% premium credits for implementing recommendations—and those credits fund further risk reduction—a virtuous cycle emerges that compounds resilience over time.

Cross-functional integration distinguishes successful enterprise programs from siloed pilot projects. Organizations that embed climate risk data into ERM (Enterprise Risk Management) frameworks, credit models, and capital planning processes achieve faster adoption and more consistent implementation than those treating climate resilience as a standalone sustainability initiative.

What Isn't Working

Historical data dependency continues to undermine many risk assessments. Climate change is rendering historical patterns less predictive, yet organizations still base decisions on backward-looking loss experience rather than forward-looking scenario analysis.

Siloed implementation fragments resilience efforts across facilities, business units, and functions. Without enterprise-wide standards and centralized oversight, individual locations optimize locally while systemic vulnerabilities persist.

Short-term planning horizons conflict with the multi-decade timeframes over which climate risks compound. Capital allocation processes designed for 3-5 year payback periods systematically under-invest in resilience measures with 10-30 year benefits.

Supplier opacity limits supply chain resilience. Most enterprises lack visibility into the climate vulnerabilities of tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers, creating hidden concentration risks that only manifest during actual disruptions.

Examples

One Concern — From Stanford Lab to Enterprise Platform

One Concern exemplifies the startup-to-enterprise scaling journey. Founded in 2015 by Stanford engineers, the company began with AI-powered models predicting earthquake impacts for emergency responders. The platform has since evolved into a planetary-scale resilience system processing 3.3 trillion recovery data points, 87 billion downtime data points, and 34 billion damage ratio data points.

The key to One Concern's enterprise penetration was shifting from hazard probability to business impact. Their Domino™ platform creates digital twins of the built environment—mapping electrical grids, substations, and distribution networks to predict cascade effects. When a flood threatens a substation, the platform calculates which surrounding facilities will lose power and for how long, translating physical hazard into operational consequence.

Strategic backing from Sompo Holdings (a major Japanese insurer) validated the platform for enterprise risk management, while partnerships with Swiss Re expanded its application to business interruption underwriting. The company has raised over $100 million, demonstrating investor confidence in enterprise-scale climate analytics.

Jupiter Intelligence — Scaling Climate Science to Financial Services

Jupiter Intelligence pursued a different path to enterprise scale, focusing on making climate science accessible to financial decision-makers. The company's ClimateScore™ Global platform delivers 22,000+ peril and loss metrics at 90-meter resolution—granularity that enables asset-level risk differentiation across global portfolios.

Jupiter's enterprise breakthrough came through rigorous Model Risk Management (MRM) validation. By designing their methodology to pass the testing protocols used by major banks, Jupiter positioned ClimateScore as compliance-ready for regulated financial institutions. Today, the platform serves 25% of the world's largest financial institutions, including three of the top five U.S. banks.

The June 2024 launch of Jupiter AI—a generative AI interface for natural language climate queries—represents the next scaling frontier. By eliminating technical barriers to data access, Jupiter expanded potential users from specialized risk analysts to any professional in the organization, democratizing climate intelligence across enterprise functions.

FM Global — Scaling Through Premium Economics

FM Global demonstrates how established institutions scale resilience through economic incentives. Their 2023 Resilience Credit program distributed $350 million to clients implementing natural hazard recommendations—a 17% increase from $300 million in 2022. The economics are compelling: following the 2022 credit, clients accelerated resilience investments that could reduce potential economic impact by up to $20 billion.

FM Global's annual Resilience Index, ranking 130 countries across 18 factors, provides the benchmarking infrastructure for enterprise resilience programs. Organizations use the index to prioritize facility hardening, evaluate site selection, and communicate resilience positioning to stakeholders. The index's credibility stems from backing by over 100,000 annual property risk assessments conducted by FM Global engineers.

The company's Climate Change Impact Report, launched in 2023, extends this infrastructure to forward-looking analysis covering five climate risks through 2030 and 2050, supporting TCFD reporting while informing long-term capital planning.

Action Checklist

• Conduct enterprise-wide climate risk assessment covering all material facilities, supply chain nodes, and infrastructure dependencies using forward-looking scenarios (2030, 2050 horizons)
• Quantify climate risk in operational terms (downtime days, recovery costs) rather than probability scores to enable cross-functional decision-making
• Map outside-the-fence risks including power grid vulnerabilities, transportation network exposures, and supplier climate profiles
• Integrate climate risk metrics into existing ERM frameworks, capital allocation processes, and credit/underwriting models
• Establish resilience investment criteria with clear ROI thresholds and multi-year payback allowances appropriate to climate timeframes
• Implement tiered supplier engagement program requiring climate risk disclosure and resilience planning from critical vendors
• Develop climate scenario playbooks for high-probability disruption events with pre-positioned response protocols

FAQ

Q: How long does it typically take to scale from pilot climate resilience programs to enterprise-wide implementation? A: Based on case study evidence, the journey from initial pilot to enterprise-scale deployment typically spans 3-5 years. The first year focuses on platform selection, data integration, and proof-of-concept in limited geographies. Years 2-3 involve expanding coverage, validating methodology for regulatory compliance (particularly for financial institutions), and building cross-functional adoption. Years 4-5 achieve full enterprise integration with climate data embedded in standard business processes. Organizations with strong executive sponsorship and dedicated climate risk functions can compress this timeline.

Q: What ROI metrics best demonstrate the value of climate resilience investments? A: The most compelling metrics combine avoided losses with operational performance. FM Global's 1:105 ratio for hurricane protection investments provides a benchmark for physical hardening ROI. Recovery speed—with top-ranked countries recovering 30% faster from property losses—demonstrates operational value. For financial institutions, reduced credit losses in climate-exposed portfolios and improved regulatory examination outcomes provide additional quantifiable returns. Insurance premium reductions (5% or more for proactive programs) offer near-term cashflow benefits that support the business case.

Q: How should organizations prioritize between flood, drought, and wildfire resilience investments? A: Prioritization should be asset-specific rather than hazard-generic. Modern climate analytics platforms enable site-by-site vulnerability ranking across all hazards, identifying which locations face compound risks (multiple hazards affecting the same facility) and which face concentrated single-hazard exposure. Generally, organizations should prioritize investments where hazard probability is increasing fastest, asset criticality is highest, and current vulnerability is greatest. Flood resilience typically offers the broadest applicability given that floods cause more economic damage globally than any other natural hazard.

Sources

• Munich Re. "Natural Disaster Figures First Half 2025." July 2025. https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2025/natural-disaster-figures-first-half-2025.html
• Swiss Re Institute. "Sigma 1/2025: Natural Catastrophes." December 2025. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2025-01-natural-catastrophes-trend.html
• Gallagher Re. "Natural Catastrophe and Climate Report 2024." January 2025. https://riskandinsurance.com/natural-disasters-cost-global-economy-417-billion-in-2024-gallagher-re/
• FM Global. "Quantifying Climate Risk." 2024. https://www.fmglobal.com/research-and-resources/climate-resilience/quantifying-climate-risk
• FM Global Newsroom. "FM Global Announces US$350 Million Resilience Credit." September 2023. https://newsroom.fmglobal.com/releases/releases-20230911
• One Concern. "Climate Risk Technology." 2025. https://www.oneconcern.com/en/technology/
• Jupiter Intelligence. "Jupiter Launches Jupiter AI." June 2024. https://www.jupiterintel.com/blog/jupiter-launches-jupiter-ai-to-accelerate-access-to-economic-climate-insights
• FM Global. "2025 FM Resilience Index." 2025. https://www.fmglobal.com/resilienceindex