Climate risk reshapes retail property economics
Climate risk retail factors are reshaping property economics, forcing finance leaders to rethink operating costs and insurance premiums.
Two retail stores might appear identical in terms of sales, rents, and formats, yet they can carry vastly different financial risks. Increasingly, climate exposure is the deciding factor. This shift is forcing property teams and finance leaders to treat environmental factors as operating-cost and estate-planning issues rather than abstract sustainability goals.
Insurance offers the clearest signal of this changing reality. Commercial real estate insurance premiums across the US jumped by 88% over five years, according to JLL. MSCI reported that insurance costs for properties in its US Quarterly Property Index hit 2.4% of income receivable in the year leading to the third quarter of 2024—double the share from five years prior.
The bill itself is only part of the problem.
Insurance pricing reveals the underlying risk of specific assets. A store’s location, construction quality, condition, and exposure to hazards like floods or wildfires all shape its risk profile. A site that seems attractive based on foot traffic and sales potential might look far less appealing once insurance costs and potential disruption expenses are added to the ledger.
Insurance Pricing Signals a Shift in Risk
Insurers are adjusting their models to account for climate uncertainty. The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics notes that climate change makes insured hazards more severe and less predictable. Historical claims data is becoming a less reliable guide, pushing insurers to rely more on catastrophe models and specific property assessments.
Related: Tariffs shift US holiday shopping rush
The pressure isn’t just from major hurricanes; it is also coming from secondary perils which are often overlooked in casual conversation. Swiss Re Institute found these events accounted for 92% of global insured natural catastrophe losses in 2025. Severe convective storms alone generated roughly $51 billion in insured losses that year.
Swiss Re estimates that more than 80% of the long-term increase in global weather-related insured losses between 1970 and 2025 stems from growth in exposure, such as expanding development and rising asset values. Construction costs and changes in building vulnerability also contribute to the trend.
It seems likely retailers will soon prioritize granular data over broad regional averages when selecting sites. As insurers continue to refine their pricing models, the gap between low-risk and high-risk locations will widen, effectively penalizing properties that lack specific resilience features. This could accelerate a shift where capital flows away from climate-vulnerable zones even if sales numbers currently look strong.
The Impact Extends Beyond Premiums
The financial toll of extreme weather goes far beyond the insurance premium. Floods, storms, and wildfires can damage buildings and inventory, but they can also block access roads or knock out power. A store does not need structural damage to close for business; a flooded access route is often enough to halt operations.
Recovery times are stretching out. Following widespread events, businesses compete for a limited pool of contractors and materials. This dynamic increases the importance of business interruption coverage and the assumptions retailers make about how quickly a location can reopen.
Related: EU accuses Temu of obstructing subsidy probe
Supply chains introduce another layer of vulnerability. A retail property might escape physical damage entirely but still fail to trade if a distribution center or critical transport route is disrupted. Climate exposure must therefore be considered across the entire operating model, not just within the confines of a property insurance policy.
The variation in costs is already visible in major markets. MSCI data shows that in the 12 months to the third quarter of 2024, insurance costs represented 4.6% of income receivable in Orlando and 4.1% in Tampa. In Chicago, that figure was just 1.3%.
These differences fundamentally alter the economics of a lease.
Lease structures complicate the calculation. Landlords typically insure buildings and recover costs from tenants, but the terms vary. Retailers must understand both their own arrangements and how building insurance costs are allocated across their estates. A cheaper policy with higher deductibles or narrower coverage might leave a retailer carrying a larger share of a loss.
The strategic implications are significant. Where physical risks rise, insurers may hike deductibles or reduce coverage limits. That can create a feedback loop where higher costs make a location less viable, forcing retailers to decide whether to invest in resilience or walk away from the site entirely.
