One of us talks to underwriters and brokers, trying to keep premiums steady in a world full of fires, floods, and forecasts.
The other walks into buildings after the loss, documenting everything that was missed the first time.We’re not usually in the same room.
But in 2025, we both know the truth:
ESG isn’t just about values anymore — it’s how buildings get judged for risk.
And the less we align?
The more everyone pays.
They’re not being political.
They’re being mathematical.
Mold with no IAQ logs = risk
Repeat loss with no material upgrade = risk
Poor vendor documentation = risk
“Sustainable” buildings with unverified claims? Bigger risk
Underwriters are now asking:
“Do you have proof this building is getting smarter — or are we just paying for it to break again?”
| ESG Concern | Restoration’s Evidence |
|---|---|
| Indoor air quality | HEPA usage, post-remediation IAQ testing |
| Energy performance | Equipment logs, insulation upgrades |
| Material compliance | Receipts, substitution logs, VOC ratings |
| Risk mitigation | Scope notes that address cause, not just damage |
| Social safeguards | Labor logs, PPE compliance, clean worksite photos |
Your job report might not say “ESG” on it.
But it’s being read that way.
If you're the restoration team:
“Want us to format this job as an insurance-friendly resilience file? We’ve seen it help with coverage reviews.”
If you're the CRE or risk manager:
“We’re getting penalized for soft files — can you help us show we’re taking ESG seriously at the response level?”
This isn’t marketing.
It’s survival.
The insurer doesn’t want a story.
They want a file.
If what we say in proposals and ESG reports doesn’t match what’s on the jobsite — the building pays for that. Literally.
But if we align early, document clearly, and share what matters,
we don’t just get coverage.
We build resilience that’s visible — and insurable.