A portion of every recall policyholder's premium already funds crisis consultancy that can include mock recalls, simulation exercises, media training and round-the-clock expert support. Most policyholders never use it until the day they need it most, by which point, according to claims commentary from the Australian market, the value of that preparation has already been cut in half.
Product recall incidents move fast and the window for containing the damage is narrow. The pattern holds regardless of jurisdiction: Businesses that have already rehearsed their response limit the damage; those improvising in real time tend to compound it.
Rebecca Bowman (pictured), claims manager, specialty, at AXA XL Australia in Sydney, said the first day or two after an incident decides how contained it stays and that window rewards clients who have already rehearsed it.
"Preparation prevents avoidable problems," Bowman said, discussing AXA XL's Australian book. "The first 24–48 hours after an incident are critical and grow exponentially. Clients who have already run through scenarios with our pre-incident consultants will respond faster and more decisively, directly reducing the duration and severity of business interruption, operational disruption, and reputational damage."
That structure isn't unique to one insurer. Chubb's Australian product recall cover similarly bundles risk-engineering and crisis-management consultancy alongside the underlying liability policy it's written against. Across the market, insurers appear to have converged on the same conclusion: a recall policy is worth more to a client with a rehearsed response plan than one without.
The problem is that many policyholders treat these services as a box already ticked by having bought the policy, rather than a resource to actively use before anything goes wrong.
It's not just an Australian pattern. Across the Tasman, New Zealand Food Safety coordinated 57 consumer-level recalls in 2025, including a metal-fragment contamination traced through imported peanut ingredients that ultimately touched 27 different food products. This is the kind of fast-moving, multi-brand event that rewards a business that has already rehearsed its response chain.
New Zealand's Ministry for Primary Industries reinforces the same preparation logic from the regulatory side. The Ministry recommends manufacturers and brand owners agree in advance who is responsible for what if a recall becomes necessary, particularly where products are made under a third party's branding.
Read next: Product recall risk requires broker role
For brokers in both markets, the opportunity is retention as much as risk management. A broker who prompts a client to actually schedule a mock recall or crisis simulation, regardless of which insurer or country is involved, demonstrates value long before a claim is ever made, at no incremental cost to the client, since the consultancy is typically already funded through the premium.
It also clarifies where the broker sits once an incident does occur. Under AXA XL's Australian process, immediate actions include the client contacting the insurer's crisis hotline, then notifying the broker, who informs the insurer so a loss adjuster can be appointed. Brokers in both Australia and New Zealand who help clients pre-build that notification sequence, rather than leaving it to be worked out mid-crisis, are removing one more variable from an already time-pressured first 48 hours.
With recall frequency remaining elevated across the region and reputational exposure amplified by social media, the brokers best placed to retain manufacturing and food clients are the ones turning a funded-but-idle policy feature into a standing readiness habit on both sides of the Tasman, well before the phone rings.
