Finance and accounting leaders across Australia and New Zealand are reporting broad business impacts from the Middle East conflict, with a new Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) survey indicating most organisations are facing higher costs, increased uncertainty, and supply chain disruption linked to the crisis.
In the survey of nearly 700 CA ANZ members, eight in 10 respondents said they are seeing increased costs, while six in 10 reported greater risk and uncertainty in business decision-making. Almost half (49%) said their organisations or clients are dealing with supply chain disruption they attribute directly to the conflict. Overall, 61% of respondents said their organisation is directly exposed to the economic effects of the conflict. Exposure was higher among New Zealand respondents, at 68%, compared with 55% in Australia. A further 21% said it is still too early to quantify the full impact.
Among those reporting exposure, higher energy costs were the most frequently cited impact, identified by 77% of affected respondents. Other reported effects included supply chain disruption (46%), higher production costs (40%), shipping and freight delays (40%), and exchange rate volatility (36%). New Zealand respondents reported greater exposure to shipping and freight disruption, with 48% citing delays compared with 32% in Australia.
CA ANZ’s membership includes senior finance and accounting professionals across sectors such as manufacturing, retail, agriculture, logistics, and healthcare, providing a cross-sector view of business conditions relevant to insurers and intermediaries in both economies. CA ANZ chief executive Ainslie van Onselen said the findings show the conflict is being felt locally across industries. “This is not a distant crisis. It is landing on Australian and New Zealand businesses right now, and our members are seeing it firsthand across every sector of the economy. CA ANZ represents 140,000 finance professionals. What they are telling us matters, and government needs to listen,” van Onselen said.
Many organisations are still assessing the situation rather than implementing detailed response plans. CA ANZ reported that around half of survey respondents are monitoring developments but have not yet put specific measures in place, indicating a cautious approach to changes in strategy, capital spending, and risk settings. About one in five respondents said they expect to increase prices in response to conflict-related pressures. This expectation was more common in New Zealand (24%) than in Australia (17%), pointing to potential differences in how pricing decisions may evolve across the two markets. CA ANZ chief economist Professor Richard Holden said higher energy prices are moving through broader cost structures. “Higher energy prices don’t just hit at the bowser, they push up the cost of food, freight, manufacturing, meaning everything increases in price. Businesses and households are already under pressure. This makes it worse,” Holden said.
When asked what forms of government intervention would be most effective, respondents highlighted two main areas: investment in infrastructure to strengthen supply chain resilience (52%) and direct support with energy costs (50%). CA ANZ group executive advocacy, public and government affairs Damian Ogden said governments should consider longer-term settings rather than treating each disruption in isolation. “Government cannot keep governing crisis to crisis. Fuel security, reliable energy, and resilient supply chains are the foundations a modern economy runs on. It is time to strengthen them,” Ogden said.
The CA ANZ findings coincide with Aon’s “Q1 2026: Global Insurance Market Overview,” which reports that geopolitical risk, particularly the Middle East conflict, is influencing underwriting approaches across multiple insurance classes. According to Aon, the conflict is already affecting marine, aviation, cyber, political violence, trade credit, property, and financial lines. In property, although overall market conditions remain relatively soft, underwriters are placing greater emphasis on operational disruption for organisations with activities in the Middle East or indirect exposure through trade routes and supply chains. Insurers are reviewing territorial definitions, sanctions clauses, hours clauses, and provisions relating to contingent business interruption.
In financial lines, Aon notes that underwriters – who were already dealing with increased claims activity, adverse loss development, and more complex risk profiles – are applying additional scrutiny to governance, disclosure practices, and business continuity arrangements. The stated objective is to ensure pricing, coverage, and structures are aligned with shifting geopolitical exposures. Insurers are reassessing aggregate exposures across portfolios and, in some cases, adjusting capacity and terms. Aon reports that underwriting scrutiny has increased, placement timelines are lengthening, and positions on coverage and pricing are being revisited as potential claims scenarios change.
The survey results and market commentary point to an environment in which higher input costs, supply chain disruption, and currency volatility are intersecting with closer policy review and changing underwriting criteria. Aon’s report notes that insurance markets can act as an early indicator of emerging risk trends, sometimes moving ahead of capital markets or observable operational disruption. In this setting, the way organisations engage with insurers and brokers, present their risk profile, and structure their programmes may influence outcomes on coverage, wording, and limits.
The broker states that insureds should anticipate continued adjustments in wordings, pricing, capacity, appetite, and claims positions as the conflict develops. It sets out a series of actions for clients, including mapping exposures beyond physical locations and owned assets, reviewing contracts and sanctions implications, stress-testing supply chains, reassessing risk transfer structures and policy language, and examining assumptions about how policies would respond in various scenarios.
Joe Peiser, CEO, Risk Capital at Aon, said insureds should examine their programmes before they are tested by events. “Now is the time to test assumptions, before events force the issue. Periods like these can expose assumptions that haven’t been stress tested: how policies respond under geopolitical pressure, where coverage ends and balance sheets begin, and whether alternative structures are needed to preserve resilience. The organizations best positioned to navigate uncertainty are those that challenge these assumptions early, while options are still available. We will continue to keep clients informed as conditions evolve,” Peiser said.
