Sustainability in Insurance Claims:
Can’t Afford to do it, or Can’t Afford Not to?
Q & A Panel
What is the percentage of waste diversion on a claim, and does that percentage vary based on type of claim? For example, fire vs. water?
Meredith Arnold:
The percentage varies considerably. The key distinction is whether the waste is regulated — materials like asbestos or lead require special handling and cannot be diverted. In these cases, sustainability efforts shift to emissions reduction and efficient processes. While she couldn’t offer a specific diversion percentage, she emphasized that sustainable outcomes are still possible through operational strategy, even if diversion isn’t.
Bill Moorman:
First On-Site branches reporting through EcoClaim show around 44% diversion, though this includes only three branches. He noted that fire-related claims often yield lower diversion due to contamination like soot, which renders materials unrecyclable. He also discussed donation programs (e.g., Habitat for Humanity) as a complementary approach, though acknowledged that tracking donations needs improvement.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie clarified that Pro-Claim doesn’t track diversion per individual claim but reports an overall diversion rate of 74%, with a goal of 86%. Materials are weighed and categorized by type. Fire and sewage claims are particularly challenging—charred or biohazard-contaminated items are often unrecoverable. He referred attendees to EcoClaim’s dashboard for verified diversion statistics by company.
How do you find new places to recycle or dispose of different material streams?
Jamie Madill:
Jamie advised starting with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which vary by province and can provide no-cost disposal solutions. He emphasized resourcefulness and recommended joining industry groups like the Coast Waste Management Association to build cross-sector partnerships. These relationships open up recycling opportunities that aren’t always obvious within the insurance or restoration sector.
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith uses the EcoClaim recycling directory but also relies heavily on local outreach. Her approach includes calling, visiting, and building relationships with local depots. She’s discovered multi-material facilities that dramatically streamline disposal. One Richmond, BC depot, for instance, accepts up to a metric ton of commercial recycling daily at no charge. Being proactive and building a network of contacts has been essential to her success.
Besides using a baler, what are some other quick and impactful process improvements?
Jamie Madill:
Metal recycling was Jamie’s top recommendation. It’s widely available and often overlooked. Copper, steel, and non-ferrous metals can generate revenue, turning a disposal expense into a profit. He also pointed to EPR programs that reduce or eliminate costs for tire and electronics disposal. While not all branches can accommodate equipment like balers (due to space or power requirements), there are still scalable, low-barrier practices that improve sustainability and efficiency.
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith stressed the importance of digital infrastructure. Her team uses Clean Claims, a software platform customized to track waste types—including regulated materials—and streamline reporting. She also integrates remote monitoring hardware, which improves data accuracy and reduces the need for site revisits. This software-hardware combo helps her team standardize sustainability tracking while cutting emissions tied to inefficiency. Even small branches can benefit from systemization without large capital investments.
There are times when drying in place works so well that the homeowner pays out-of-pocket and withdraws the claim. How can we ensure these success stories are being tracked?
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith explained that her team tracks every job, whether it’s insurance-paid or self-pay. This practice started out of necessity, as they didn’t initially have access to many insurance claims. All waste diversion data is included on customer invoices—e.g., “762 lbs of wood and carpet diverted.” This not only creates transparency but also reinforces the environmental value of the service. It’s part of how they measure success, regardless of whether the insurer is involved.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie called Meredith’s invoicing approach “the most impactful thing” he heard during the session. He strongly supports adding data about avoided emissions or diverted waste directly onto invoices. He believes this could be a game-changer if adopted industry-wide. He even proposed that EcoClaim develop a visual icon or template for restoration contractors to use—making it easier to communicate sustainability wins directly to insurers, brokers, and homeowners.
Are the insurance companies offering incentives or collaboration opportunities for waste reduction and sustainability efforts by restoration companies?
Jamie Madill:
Jamie acknowledged that incentives from insurers are rare. He cited an exception in Alberta, where AMA offers an extra hour of administrative billing per file, but noted this is not common practice. However, there is a growing trend among insurers to choose restoration partners based on sustainability credentials. He sees this shift as subtle but promising.
Maureen Curiton:
Maureen highlighted several insurers who are moving forward with sustainability initiatives. For example, Aviva’s Net Zero Supplier Accelerator helps vendors validate their science-based targets through external consultancy. Companies like Cooperators and Beneva are also incorporating sustainability into vendor selection. Maureen explained that these initiatives represent insurers investing in measurable emissions reductions—even subsidizing training and software like EcoClaim to help vendors participate.
Bill Moorman:
Bill affirmed these developments but pointed out a key challenge: insurance companies are hesitant to pay more for sustainable practices when the policyholder might switch providers within a year or two. This disincentivizes long-term investment. He stressed that systemic changes are needed for sustainability to be prioritized in claims handling.
Jamie, the cardboard baler is a great actionable step for improving operational processes—simple, effective, and easy to implement. Are there any other process improvements you’ve come across that might not be widely known, but could be just as quick and impactful?
Jamie Madill:
Jamie emphasized that metal recycling should be a starting point for any contractor. It’s financially beneficial and easy to implement. He also recommended investigating local EPR programs to uncover zero-cost disposal options funded by producers. He stressed that these programs can save money and enhance operational sustainability without requiring upfront investment. Jamie noted that while balers are excellent tools, not all branches have the infrastructure to support them, making flexibility essential.
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith focused on technology and systemization. Her team uses software that customizes reporting for both internal use and insurer communication. She described it as “lazy smart”—automation and consistency mean fewer return visits and cleaner data. She also described using remote monitoring tools to collect temperature and humidity data more reliably. These tools allow her to tailor data presentations for different insurers and reduce emissions by eliminating redundant site work.
Bill mentioned adoption as a challenge. How long did it take your organization to reach full adoption—or at least an acceptable level—of sustainable practices?
Bill Moorman:
Bill explained that adoption at First On-Site is still ongoing, particularly as they scale across Canada. While it’s progressed well in the West and Atlantic Canada, it’s been slower in Ontario—not due to a lack of infrastructure, but due to internal team readiness. Training is often paused when large-scale events pull staff away from their regular branches. Bill emphasized that successful implementation requires timing, tools, and consistent communication. The team has to be shown how the process works in more mature branches (like those in BC or Alberta), so they can model that success.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie emphasized that sustainability is a journey, not a destination. There is no endpoint—just continuous layering of improvements. He said that new technologies and processes will always emerge, so the real question is “What can we build on today?” rather than “When will we be done?”
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith echoed both points and stressed the importance of grace and flexibility within networks. She acknowledged that some branches adopt sustainability quickly, while others lag. However, even slow progress is meaningful—every step forward counts. She stressed the importance of recognizing regional variation and not imposing a one-size-fits-all timeline.
What about the bad behavior of people who work on site? How can I change their behaviors and are there best practices for changing the on-site work culture?
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith said one effective method is to set clear expectations and align them with incentives. For example, teams that meet sustainability targets might get perks like a month without being on-call or a gift card. This creates a “what’s in it for me” dynamic that can jumpstart buy-in—especially for team members not naturally aligned with sustainability values. She acknowledged that this isn’t ideal long-term, but sometimes extrinsic motivators help bridge the gap until intrinsic values take root.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie disagreed with incentive-based approaches. He argued that rewarding people to “do the right thing” creates fragile systems. Once the reward disappears, the behavior often does too. Instead, he believes culture and values must drive change. Sustainability should be built into the identity of the organization. He added that if team members fundamentally don’t align with those values, they may not be a fit for the company. Strong culture creates its own accountability.
Bill Moorman:
Bill shared a middle-ground approach. He drew on his experience managing health and safety programs to show how consistency, training, and accountability change behaviors. Rather than offering rewards, his teams focus on ongoing education, transparency, and asking why someone isn’t following procedure. He emphasized making the business case and helping staff internalize the value of sustainable practices. If someone continues to resist, then it may be necessary to part ways—but the goal is understanding first.
What role does the adjuster need to play in this journey to measuring and reducing emissions?
Bill Moorman:
Bill emphasized that adjusters need to be educated about what’s happening on-site. Most aren’t physically present, so it’s crucial to communicate what materials are being sorted, why things are being done differently, and how those changes support sustainability.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie added that it starts with curiosity. Adjusters who care about emissions or sustainability should ask better questions—like what’s being done with demo materials, or how much was saved by drying in place. That engagement from the adjuster side encourages contractors to track and improve. He noted that if adjusters are aligned with their company’s sustainability goals, their curiosity can spark real change.
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith fully agreed, emphasizing that better questions lead to better outcomes. Even if adjusters aren’t present, they can—and should—request photos, reports, or data on what was done and why.
How can our agencies influence our companies to use a sustainable restoration company? What can brokers do to help?
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith acknowledged that this is an ongoing challenge. Many brokers express support for sustainability but feel powerless when it comes to influencing insurer decisions. She noted the existence of longstanding referral patterns that favor less sustainability-focused vendors simply because “it’s easier.” Meredith expressed a desire for more leverage on the broker side to shift these patterns—especially when brokers are personally aligned with sustainability.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie encouraged brokers to embed sustainability into their own values and make it a differentiator when choosing which insurers to work with. He also suggested brokers educate themselves on which insurers have sustainability mandates or programs—such as EcoClaim partnerships or green rebuilding endorsements. On the commercial side, he noted, brokers can exert even greater influence. For example, Wilson Beck has incorporated sustainable restoration standards directly into their commercial policy language. Jamie urged brokers to be proactive about advocating for these kinds of policy features.
Bill Moorman:
Bill agreed that brokers often have more leverage in the commercial space than in residential. Commercial clients typically have sustainability or ESG commitments of their own, which opens the door for brokers to influence vendor choice. He sees this as an underutilized opportunity for brokers to advocate for sustainability as part of their value proposition.
How would an insurance broker know that systems like EcoClaim are part of a claim? Typically, they’re kept in the dark during the claims process, but this could be important for their clients.
Bill Moorman:
Bill emphasized that in commercial claims, brokers are often closer to the process and can request data directly from the contractor or through EcoClaim. The key is communication. If a restoration company is using EcoClaim, there’s no reason that diversion reports and GHG data couldn’t be shared with brokers—if the client or insurer authorizes it.
Meaghan Ralston (moderator):
Meaghan clarified that the data within EcoClaim is owned by the contractor (or insurer, depending on the claim) and can be shared externally if requested. She added that EcoClaim produces report cards for participating insurers that show vendor diversion rates—these could be valuable tools for brokers advocating for greener practices.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie supported this point and described the EcoClaim report card as a key piece of evidence brokers can use to identify and promote sustainable vendors. He suggested brokers “get involved with EcoClaim” to access data and understand which restoration companies are actively making a difference.
The conversation wrapped with reflections on where the sustainability movement in restoration is headed.
Jamie Madill:
Jamie highlighted conservation as the next major topic—”What can we save before we spend?” He advocated for continued collaboration across the industry and encouraged EcoClaim to support more case studies and tools to help contractors quantify and communicate avoided emissions.
Meredith Arnold:
Meredith pitched future webinar topics including proactive restoration (e.g., installing sump pumps post-flood) and full product lifecycle evaluations. She emphasized that restoration must evolve from reactionary to preventive in order to make a deeper impact on sustainability. She also raised the need for product sourcing transparency—understanding where materials come from and where they end up.
Bill Moorman:
Bill stressed the importance of governmental support. Many municipalities still lack basic recycling infrastructure. He called for a national conversation around public investment in circular systems and urged the industry to serve as a united voice in lobbying for systemic change.