The UK insurance market is generating more landfill waste through claims handling than it should be, and brokers have a more direct role in reducing it than is commonly recognised, according to research published by the Chartered Insurance Institute.
The report, No Time to Waste, was produced by the CII's New Generation Programme 2024/25 Claims Group. It found that sustainable claims practices are already in operation across parts of the market, including repair-rather-than-replace programmes, recycling networks, zero-to-landfill strategies and schemes that donate salvaged contents to charity. The problem is not that the solutions do not exist. It is that they are being applied inconsistently, and that cost pressures, customer expectations and the need to settle claims quickly are routinely winning out over environmental considerations.
The research is directed at the full claims supply chain, but its findings place brokers in a more influential position than a purely transactional reading of their role would suggest.
At placement, brokers can steer clients toward policies that include green claims clauses, which commit the insurer or appointed supplier to sustainable repair, disposal or replacement options as a matter of course rather than an exception requiring the client to ask. At the point of loss, brokers can influence which loss adjuster or claims manager is appointed, and therefore which supplier network handles the physical work. Those decisions shape whether damaged materials are repaired, recycled, donated or sent to landfill, and they are made before a single item leaves the property.
Crawford's Zero to Landfill programme is one operational example of what that can look like in practice: the firm has used it, in partnership with the Community Wood Recycling Project, to redirect reclaimed timber from agricultural losses into wildlife habitat construction rather than disposal. That kind of outcome depends on a supplier with the infrastructure to achieve it being in the claims chain from the start, which is partly a placement decision.
The CII's research identified the barriers keeping repairable and recyclable material headed for the skip: cost pressure on claims settlements, policyholder expectations of like-for-like replacement, limited awareness of available salvage and recycling options among handlers, and the commercial pressure to resolve claims quickly. Those forces pull in the same direction, and without deliberate counterpressure from the firms commissioning the work, they tend to win.
Some participants in the research admitted they had never considered the environmental impact of claims handling before taking part in the programme. Others argued sustainability needs to become a routine, visible part of claims conversations rather than a specialist concern, backed by practical tools and clearer guidance from across the industry.
Matthew Connell, director of policy and public affairs at the CII, said claims handling is a meaningful part of the industry's wider environmental role. "Insurance has a vital role to play in supporting the transition to a more sustainable economy, and claims handling is an important part of that journey," he said. "This research highlights encouraging examples of good practice already taking place across the market, while also showing there is considerable potential to further reduce landfill waste through greater collaboration, education and innovation."
The most important systemic barrier the research identifies is also the least visible: the absence of consistent data. Without reliable figures on how much claims waste is recycled, reused or sent to landfill at firm level, insurers and loss adjusters cannot demonstrate progress to customers, regulators or their own boards, and cannot make the operational case that sustainable options add neither cost nor delay when properly embedded in a claims process.
Respondents called for firmer guidance on repair-versus-replace decisions, stronger supplier accountability, and closer collaboration across the claims supply chain to make sustainable options the default rather than the exception. They also wanted transparency — not just commitments — on how firms actually perform against environmental measures.
For brokers, the data question has a practical dimension beyond ESG reporting. A client asking how their insurer handles claims waste should be able to get a specific answer. At the moment, most cannot. Brokers who can identify which panel suppliers have zero-to-landfill programmes in place, and build that into their recommendations, are offering something concrete rather than a general assurance.
The pressure on the market to show real progress is not coming only from within. Customers, regulators and other stakeholders are increasingly treating environmental commitments as something to be evidenced rather than stated. The CII's report is intended to prompt practical steps rather than further debate, and its focus on the claims supply chain is deliberate: it is where the environmental impact of insurance is most physically tangible, and where the gap between stated commitment and operational reality is currently widest.
The report is the latest output from the CII's New Generation Programme, which brings together members early in their careers to work on real-world sector challenges. The programme's choice of claims waste as a subject reflects both the scale of the opportunity and the recognition that it has received less systematic attention than underwriting or investment sustainability.
