The Global Risks Alliance: Strategic Positioning 

The Global Risks Alliance (GRA) aspires to be a multilateral platform uniting stakeholders across finance, government, and technology to tackle systemic risks[1][2]. To chart its course, it is crucial to benchmark GRA against existing global associations and initiatives in risk management and capital allocation. These range from nonprofit professional bodies (e.g. PRMIA, GARP, RIMS) to regulatory forums (e.g. IAIS, IIF), public-private partnerships (e.g. WEF’s risk initiatives, Insurance Development Forum), and commercial or hybrid entities (e.g. Moody’s RMS, Marsh, Swiss Re Institute, World Bank’s Disaster Risk Finance programs). This report compares these entities across key dimensions – membership, services, governance, capital programs, education, partnerships, and digital infrastructure – focusing on developments in 2023–2025. We then recommend how GRA can integrate best practices and position itself as a superior, unified, sovereign-grade alliance with deep technical expertise, aligned policy objectives, and a clear legal/governance framework. 

Membership Structures and Eligibility 

Professional Risk Associations (PRMIA, GARP, RIMS): These organizations have broad individual memberships comprised of risk practitioners. PRMIA (Professional Risk Managers’ International Association) is a member-driven non-profit with ~50,000 members worldwide[3][4]. Membership is open to individuals (students, professionals) and supported by corporate sponsors; PRMIA offers both individual and corporate membership tiers to engage firms serious about risk management capability[5]. GARP (Global Association of Risk Professionals) similarly is a not-for-profit association of financial risk managers, claiming over 279,000 members across 195+ countries as of 2021[6][7]. GARP membership primarily comes through individuals pursuing its certifications, and it does not restrict membership by sector (its members span banking, insurance, asset management, regulators, etc.)[8]. RIMS (Risk & Insurance Management Society) is a professional society founded in 1950, focused on enterprise risk managers in corporates and public entities[9]. RIMS has a mixed membership model: it represents ~3,500 organizations and over 10,000 individual risk professionals globally[10]. Many RIMS members join via organizational memberships (companies, government agencies, nonprofits), often with local chapters for networking[10]. Eligibility for these associations is broad (anyone in risk management can join), emphasizing inclusivity across industries, though their core base tends to be financial risk for PRMIA/GARP and corporate/insurance risk for RIMS. 

Regulatory and Industry Alliances (IAIS, IIF): Membership here is often by institutions rather than individuals. The IAIS (International Association of Insurance Supervisors) is a voluntary membership Verein under Swiss law comprising insurance regulators from over 200 jurisdictions, representing 97% of the world’s insurance premiums[11]. Only official supervisory agencies (and central banks or finance ministries acting as insurance regulators) can be full IAIS members. It also admits certain international bodies (e.g. World Bank, IMF) as observers or partners, but it is fundamentally a regulators’ network. The IIF (Institute of International Finance), by contrast, is a global association of the private financial industry. It was founded by major banks and now has ~400 member firms in 60+ countries[12][13]. IIF membership spans commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, asset managers, sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, exchanges, and even some public financial institutions like central banks and development banks[14][15]. In other words, any significant financial institution or stakeholder can join IIF, typically by invitation and payment of membership fees. This cross-sector industry membership allows IIF to represent a unified financial industry voice. Notably, IIF’s board includes top banking and insurance CEOs[16], reflecting its elite industry composition. Eligibility is thus broad within financial services, but it remains a trade group for firms (not individuals). 

Public-Private Multistakeholder Partnerships (WEF, IDF, InsuResilience): These alliances bring together diverse actors across sectors. The World Economic Forum (WEF), while not exclusively focused on risk, hosts the high-profile Global Risks Initiative and annual Global Risks Report. WEF’s core membership consists of over 1,000 leading companies, but its activities involve governments, international organizations, experts, and civil society. For example, the WEF Global Risks Report surveys ~900 experts from academia, business, and government[17][18]. WEF initiatives like the Resilience Consortium and Global Risks Initiative engage public-sector leaders and private executives jointly to discuss risk preparedness[19][20]. Similarly, the Insurance Development Forum (IDF) is explicitly a public–private partnership led by the insurance industry with support from the UN, World Bank and other international bodies[21][22]. Its membership is broad, including over 20 global insurers and brokers, government agencies from both G20 and developing nations, international organizations, and NGOs[23]. The related InsuResilience Global Partnership (launched by G20 nations) has 110+ members as of 2025, open to governments, private insurers/reinsurers, NGOs, and multilateral institutions collaborating on climate and disaster risk finance[24][25]. In these partnerships, eligibility is deliberately inclusive – any organization committed to the resilience mission can join – to ensure multilateral alignment. This multistakeholder model mirrors what GRA envisions: GRA aims to span a “quintuple helix” of government agencies, academia, financial/insurance firms, technology providers, and civil society networks as members[26], thereby uniting sovereign actors with private and scientific communities under one alliance. 

Commercial and Hybrid Entities (Moody’s RMS, Marsh, Swiss Re Institute, World Bank DRF): For-profit firms don’t have “members” but rather clients and partners. Moody’s RMS (Risk Management Solutions) is a leading catastrophe risk modeling firm acquired by Moody’s Corporation in 2021[27]. It serves hundreds of insurers, reinsurers, and increasingly banks and investors who license its models and software; effectively these users form a community but not a formal membership. Marsh McLennan (the parent of Marsh, Guy Carpenter, etc.) is a publicly traded professional services firm – it has clients across sectors rather than members, ranging from corporations seeking insurance brokerage or risk consulting to public entities using Marsh’s advisory services. Swiss Re Institute is an in-house think tank of Swiss Re (a global reinsurer) and not a member organization; however, it collaborates with numerous academic and industry partners. For instance, Swiss Re Institute works with universities and even other insurers (e.g. a joint research initiative with AXA’s research fund) to explore emerging risks[28][29]. It also engages central banks, policymakers and NGOs via research partnerships and conferences (the Institute hosts an annual Resilience Summit inviting global research partners)[30]. The World Bank’s Disaster Risk Finance (DRF) programs similarly do not have a membership base, but they operate through client countries and donors. The World Bank has advised over 70 countries on disaster risk financing policy and has at least 20 countries implementing dedicated climate-risk finance strategies under its guidance[31]. It partners with finance ministries and insurance regulators in those countries, essentially treating them as participants in a global DRF community. In addition, the World Bank coordinates with donor governments (e.g. Germany, UK via trust funds) and with private reinsurers to structure risk transfer solutions. 

Key Takeaway: Membership models vary widely – from individual-centric (PRMIA, GARP) to corporate-centric (RIMS, IIF), public-sector networks (IAIS), broad coalitions (WEF, IDF, InsuResilience), and client-partner ecosystems (commercial firms, World Bank). GRA should emulate the inclusive multistakeholder approach, inviting sovereign governments, financial institutions, tech firms, academia and NGOs as co-equal members. This would set it apart as a “sovereign-grade” alliance that, unlike a typical industry association, formally integrates public-sector authorities into its core membership and governance (similar to IAIS and IDF) while also engaging private and academic experts (like WEF or GARP). GRA’s founding vision indeed targets such breadth, from ministries to fintech startups[26]. 

Service Offerings and Programs 

Risk Standards, Certification, and Knowledge (PRMIA, GARP, RIMS): The professional associations focus on setting competency standards, providing education, and facilitating knowledge exchange. PRMIA offers the Professional Risk Manager (PRM) certification and other certificates (e.g. an Operational Risk Manager designation launched in 2022)[4][32]. It provides an online forum, webinars, and local chapter events for knowledge-sharing in risk science and practices. GARP likewise offers the globally recognized Financial Risk Manager (FRM) certification (since 1997) and newer programs like the Sustainability and Climate Risk (SCR) certificate[33][8]. Beyond exams, GARP provides training courses, continuing education credits, and publishes research through the GARP Risk Institute[34]. It also runs initiatives such as the GARP Benchmarking Initiative which allows financial firms to anonymously compare risk metrics – a service leveraging pooled data for risk analytics[35]. RIMS primarily serves practitioners through content and tools: it publishes Risk Management magazine, hosts one of the world’s largest annual risk conferences, and offers the RIMS-CRMP certification (Certified Risk Management Professional) along with designations like Canadian Risk Manager (CRM)[36]. RIMS also provides practical frameworks such as the Risk Maturity Model, a free online ERM assessment tool that over 2,000 organizations have used to benchmark their enterprise risk management maturity[37]. In summary, these bodies excel in education (certifications, courses), information resources (magazines, white papers), and professional networking. They do not directly provide financial products or capital; instead, they equip risk managers with knowledge and credentials to apply in their organizations. 

Regulatory Standards, Policy and Advocacy (IAIS, IIF): The services here revolve around developing frameworks and influencing policy. The IAIS is the global standard-setter for insurance supervision, akin to what the Basel Committee is for banking. Its core outputs are principles, standards, and guidance for regulators – e.g. the Insurance Core Principles (ICPs), ComFrame (common framework for supervising international insurers), and capital standards like the ICS[38][39]. IAIS also provides a forum for its members to share supervisory best practices and coordinate on issues like insurer macroprudential monitoring[40][41]. It regularly publishes the Global Insurance Market Report (GIMAR) analyzing industry trends and potential systemic risks, thereby offering data-driven insight to members. Additionally, IAIS assists in implementation of standards via training and assessments, often in partnership with bodies like the Access to Insurance Initiative (A2ii) to help emerging markets strengthen regulation. Meanwhile, the IIF provides advocacy, research, and convening services on behalf of the financial industry. Its mission is to support prudent risk management and influence regulatory and economic policies in line with members’ interests[15]. Concretely, IIF produces high-quality research reports (e.g. on sustainable finance, digital assets, debt), policy position papers, and comment letters to international regulators. For instance, in 2025 the IIF co-authored a major paper warning that fragmented national regulations were undermining global financial resilience[42]. It advocated for greater regulatory coherence and made recommendations to standard-setters like the FSB and Basel Committee[43][44]. This illustrates IIF’s role as a collective industry voice, formulating best-practice recommendations and lobbying for aligned global rules. IIF also convenes top executives and officials in events such as its Annual Membership Meeting and specialized colloquia on bank regulation[45]. In summary, IAIS offers formal rule-making and supervisory collaboration, while IIF offers industry-led policy shaping, data (e.g. the IIF’s global debt monitor), and forums for high-level dialogue. Both indirectly improve risk management practices: IAIS by mandating standards (e.g. enterprise risk management, capital adequacy) and IIF by disseminating best practices and pushing regulators toward balanced, stability-oriented frameworks[13]. 

Risk Insight and Convening (WEF Global Risk Initiative): The World Economic Forum’s value is in thought leadership and multi-sector engagement. Its flagship Global Risks Report (produced annually, including 2023–2025 editions) provides a comprehensive analysis of major global risks over short, medium, and long-term horizons[46]. This report has become a cornerstone reference for both public and private sector risk planning[18]. WEF’s risk work doesn’t stop at analysis – the Forum runs ongoing initiatives (often branded as “platforms” or “consortia”) to translate insights into action. For example, the Resilience Consortium was launched to promote collaborative approaches to crisis management and develop common frameworks for resilience across businesses and governments[19]. Likewise, the Global Risks Initiative provides a platform for executives and officials to stay up-to-date on emerging risks and exchange best practices in risk mitigation[47]. These initiatives yield toolkits such as scenario planning exercises, crisis simulation events, and guidance on building national resilience strategies. WEF also frequently incubates public-private projects – e.g. industry-led initiatives on cyber risk or climate adaptation – by leveraging its convening power. While WEF does not directly offer financial products or certification, it packages knowledge in an accessible way (interactive reports, strategic briefings) and mobilizes partnerships. In 2023–2024 we saw WEF focus heavily on “getting serious about risk management,” urging businesses to integrate risk readiness into corporate strategy in light of compounding crises[48]. In short, WEF’s service is agenda-setting and partnership facilitation – it ensures that risk management and resilience stay at the forefront of global economic discussions and that stakeholders have forums to collaborate. 

Risk Analytics, Products, and Advisory (Moody’s RMS, Marsh, Swiss Re Institute): The for-profit and hybrid entities provide highly technical services and solutions, often directly supporting risk transfer or management decisions. Moody’s RMS is a premier provider of catastrophe risk models and analytics. Its core offering is a suite of probabilistic models (over 700 models covering perils from hurricanes to cyber attacks) delivered via cloud-based software like Risk Modeler™[49]. Insurers use these tools for pricing, underwriting, and capital modeling (e.g. determining how much reinsurance or capital reserves they need for catastrophe exposures)[27]. RMS also offers advisory services – for example, modeling catastrophe bond triggers, or conducting climate change scenario analyses for financial clients. In 2023, Moody’s RMS released updated model versions incorporating forward-looking climate risk scenarios to help companies assess future hazard under climate change[50]. Additionally, since becoming part of Moody’s Analytics, RMS’s data is being integrated into credit risk products (linking physical climate risk to credit ratings and investment analysis)[51]. Essentially, Moody’s RMS provides the quantitative engine that many risk managers rely on: probabilistic loss distributions, risk scores, resilience indices, etc. Marsh, on the other hand, provides hands-on risk solutions and advisory. As the world’s largest insurance broker and risk advisor, Marsh designs and places risk transfer programs (insurance policies, captives, bonds) and offers strategic risk consulting. A growing offering has been parametric insurance solutions – Marsh publishes guidance on how parametric triggers (e.g. defined by wind speed, rainfall, seismic intensity) can provide quick payouts and fill coverage gaps in climate and supply-chain risks[52][53]. Marsh’s specialists help clients structure these innovative covers to strengthen resilience against catastrophes[54]. The firm also has risk analytics services, using data to quantify exposures and model what-if scenarios for clients[55]. For example, Marsh’s analytics platform can simulate the impact of disasters on a company’s global assets, or optimize a client’s insurance portfolio for cost-efficiency and coverage adequacy[56]. In 2023–2024, Marsh McLennan highlighted emerging solutions like nature-based insurance (for ecosystem restoration)[57] and launched new sector-specific coverage (e.g. a 2024 data center risk insurance package integrating cyber, property, and business interruption coverage)[58]. Swiss Re Institute provides research and data-driven thought leadership that underpins products offered by Swiss Re and the wider insurance market. It publishes the authoritative sigma research series, including studies on global insurance penetration and the annual catastrophe loss tallies[59]. Notably, Swiss Re Institute developed a Resilience Index to quantify the world’s insurance protection gap: in its 2024 sigma report, it found global insurance resilience was only 58%, with a protection gap of $1.83 trillion in 2023[60][61]. These insights not only inform policymakers (showing where insurance coverage is insufficient) but also guide Swiss Re’s own market strategy (identifying areas to expand insurance solutions). The Institute’s services include scenario modeling (for macroeconomic and climate risks), forecasting (it provides global insurance market forecasts), and client-tailored research. It also runs training for Swiss Re’s clients – e.g. technical workshops on underwriting, risk modeling – as part of its knowledge transfer mission[62][63]. In addition, Swiss Re Institute increasingly engages in open innovation challenges (recently inviting proposals for modeling biodiversity and ecosystem service risks to advance resilience metrics)[64]. Thus, Moody’s RMS, Marsh, and Swiss Re Institute together illustrate the spectrum of technical services: from providing the data and models (RMS, Swiss Re) to designing and executing transactions (Marsh), all leveraging advanced analytics to support risk financing and management. 

Development Finance and Risk Transfer (World Bank DRF Programs): The World Bank through its Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance Program delivers a combination of advisory, financial instruments, and capacity-building services to governments. One aspect is helping countries develop comprehensive disaster risk finance strategies, which involves turning hazard data into economic loss estimations and identifying financial protection gaps[65][66]. This analytical work (often done via the Bank’s Financial Protection Forum and country risk assessments) guides governments in choosing a mix of instruments – e.g. budgetary contingency funds for frequent small events, contingent credit lines for medium events, and insurance or catastrophe bonds for rare severe disasters[67][68]. The Bank then facilitates implementation of those instruments. For example, it offers a pre-arranged credit facility called the Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (Cat-DDO), which several countries have used to secure quick post-disaster financing. It also intermediates parametric insurance and reinsurance for sovereigns: in Morocco, the Bank helped design a national scheme combining private insurance with a government solidarity fund, including a parametric earthquake reinsurance cover that paid out $275 million swiftly after the 2023 quake[69]. The Bank has been instrumental in setting up regional risk pools (like CCRIF in the Caribbean, PCRIC in the Pacific, SEADRIF in Southeast Asia), providing technical expertise, convening countries, and sometimes acting as an issuer for catastrophe bonds on behalf of members. Additionally, World Bank programs often blend capital with innovation – e.g. the Global Risk Financing Facility (GRiF) is a trust fund that grants money to pilot new risk financing solutions (such as Malawi’s pioneering use of insurance to fund scalable social safety nets against drought)[70]. In Malawi’s case, Bank support helped create a layered system where a contingency fund handles moderate droughts and a parametric insurance cover (backed by private reinsurers) funds emergency aid in severe droughts[70]. The Bank also shares toolkits and knowledge: its Crisis Risk Finance Toolkit compiles guidelines on setting up these instruments[68], and it conducts training for ministry of finance officials on risk modeling and financing (often in collaboration with partners like academia or the insurance industry). Overall, the World Bank’s DRF services are highly comprehensive – they encompass policy advice, analytics, financial product intermediation (loans, bonds, insurance), and capacity building – with the explicit goal of boosting the financial resilience of governments and vulnerable populations to shocks[71][72]. 

Key Takeaway: Best-in-class service offerings cover a broad range: knowledge and standards (PRMIA/GARP, IAIS), policy advocacy (IIF, WEF), product design and analytics (RMS, Marsh, Swiss Re), and financing solutions (World Bank, IDF). GRA’s ambition should be to integrate these: provide technical depth (like risk modeling, analytics tools), educational and standard-setting services (like certifications or frameworks for risk governance), advisory and product facilitation (helping members structure innovative risk financing deals), and platforms for coordination (policy dialogues, data-sharing networks). Notably, GRA can fill gaps by offering a unified suite: e.g. an alliance that not only sets best practices, but also helps implement them through shared digital infrastructure and pooled resources. Few existing entities do all of this under one roof – for example, IDF comes close by coordinating insurance projects and advocating at global forums, but it doesn’t set professional standards or build open tech at scale. GRA could differentiate by delivering a one-stop solution: from developing open-source risk models to guiding policies for their use and even helping channel capital for resilience projects. 

Governance and Legal Structure 

Organizational Forms: The entities reviewed demonstrate various legal structures, each with implications for governance. PRMIA and GARP are typically incorporated as not-for-profit associations (in the U.S., likely 501(c) organizations) dedicated to education and professional development[4][73]. They have member-elected boards/trustees (e.g. GARP’s Board of Trustees includes industry leaders overseeing the mission[74]) and operate under bylaws that enshrine member service and ethics. RIMS is a not-for-profit professional society (Inc.) with a traditional governance model: an executive committee and board drawn from its membership of risk managers, guiding its strategic direction (with an emphasis on advancing practice and member services)[75][76]. These organizations ensure accountability to their individual or corporate members through democratic or consultative governance processes (e.g. annual general meetings, chapter leadership input). 

IAIS has a unique status as a Swiss association (Verein) hosted by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel[77][78]. As a Verein, it is a member-owned body under Swiss civil law, which provides it legal personality and the ability to enter agreements, while its members (insurance regulators) retain ultimate control through a General Meeting. IAIS’s governance features an Executive Committee of 40 elected representatives from different regions that makes strategic decisions and appoints a Secretary General[79]. Its structure is committee-heavy to represent members’ interests: policy development, implementation, budget, and other committees composed of member supervisors drive its work[80]. This governance ensures global representation and consensus, important since members are sovereign regulators who must agree on standards. The IIF, by contrast, is structured as an industry trade group (formally a nonprofit association) headquartered in Washington, D.C.[81]. It is governed by a Board of Directors comprising ~48 CEOs/chairs of member institutions, led by a Chair (currently Ana Botín of Santander as of 2023)[16]. The Board sets IIF’s agenda, and day-to-day operations are run by a CEO and small secretariat. IIF’s legal form and governance are geared toward agility in advocacy; its board members are high-level private executives, which gives it clout but also means its priorities skew toward private sector views (with central bank members as non-voting associates). 

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is established as an independent international organization (a Swiss non-profit foundation). It has a foundation board (including business, political, and academic figures) but importantly also operates through a network of communities (e.g. Global Agenda Councils, industry action groups) that involve members in governance of initiatives. WEF’s legal status as a foundation gives it neutrality and stability; it can enter partnerships with governments while remaining outside direct government control. This structure has allowed it to act as a trusted convener. Similarly, the IDF is a public-private partnership rather than a standalone legal entity (though it has a secretariat in London). It was formed via agreement among the UN, World Bank, and insurance industry, and governed by a Steering Committee co-chaired by industry and public leaders (e.g. the Chair of Zurich Insurance co-chairs the IDF Steering Committee)[82][83]. The IDF’s broad membership is reflected in its governance: it coordinates across working groups and donor-funded programs, reporting to its Steering Committee which includes stakeholders from both sectors. IDF’s quasi-formal structure gives flexibility: it can receive funds (hosted by UN or World Bank channels) and deploy industry expertise without needing a treaty. The InsuResilience Global Partnership has a Governing Board co-led by representatives of donor countries and vulnerable countries, ensuring shared ownership between the G20 and V20 groups, and a Secretariat hosted by international agencies (e.g. GIZ and World Bank for different functions). This multi-hosted governance is more complex but ensures policy alignment with international climate goals and development agendas. 

For-profit governance: Moody’s RMS is part of Moody’s Analytics, itself a division of Moody’s Corporation (NYSE-listed). Thus, its governance falls under corporate management and Moody’s board of directors. While it may have an advisory council of scientists or customers for model development, ultimate decisions align with shareholder interests and Moody’s strategic goals. Marsh McLennan and Swiss Re are also shareholder-owned companies, with governance by boards accountable to investors. Swiss Re Institute, being an internal unit, has no separate legal identity; it is governed by Swiss Re’s executive committee (with presumably a leadership team at the Institute level setting research priorities). The World Bank is a treaty-based multilateral institution – its DRF programs are subject to the Bank’s governance (Board of Executive Directors representing member countries). This lends sovereign legitimacy but also means slower bureaucratic processes and the need to align programs with the Bank’s development mandate and safeguards. 

Legal clarity and authority: Importantly, some alliances have formal authority while others rely on voluntary adoption. IAIS, for instance, though not a treaty organization, is recognized by the G20/FSB and its Insurance Core Principles are used by the IMF/World Bank in financial sector assessments – giving its standards de facto authority. IAIS’s legal clarity comes from well-defined by-laws and an established relationship with the BIS for hosting, which provides stability[78]. IIF, lacking any statutory authority, instead wields influence through credibility and representation, not through legally binding decisions. WEF’s foundation status means it cannot mandate action; its influence flows from convening power and soft persuasion. On the public-private front, IDF and InsuResilience have had to carefully define roles via charters/Memoranda of Understanding: for example, IDF’s charter defines that it “enables optimal coordination of insurance-related activities, development of shared priorities, and mobilization of resources… while safeguarding the integrity of joint efforts”[23]. This kind of language in its governance documents clarifies how different actors work together and helps avoid duplication or conflict with other initiatives. Notably, IDF’s inclusion of both governments and industry in governance helps confer it a quasi-official status at forums like the UN Climate conferences (as seen by its prominent role at COP28)[84]. 

Key Takeaway: Effective governance for GRA should marry the legitimacy of sovereign participation with the efficiency of a well-structured nonprofit/partnership. The models suggest that to be “sovereign-grade,” GRA likely needs either a formal international charter (e.g. a treaty or a UN General Assembly mandate) or at least a legal domicile that accommodates multilateral ownership (Swiss Verein or a foundation with governments on the board). IAIS’s Swiss Verein model is instructive – it provides legal clarity (members are defined, decision rights allocated, liability limited) while allowing an international membership. Likewise, WEF’s independent foundation with multi-stakeholder board shows how to remain neutral yet influential. GRA might consider incorporating in a neutral jurisdiction under an international governance framework, with bylaws explicitly granting seats or councils to different stakeholder groups (e.g. a Government Council, Industry Council, Scientific Council feeding into a unified Governing Board). This would ensure policy alignment (governments have a formal say) and technical depth (experts have a voice), while maintaining an agile structure. Ensuring legal clarity also means clearly defining how GRA’s decisions or standards interface with national laws and regulators – for example, if GRA develops standard contract clauses or risk metrics, are these advisory or will members formally endorse them for adoption? Learning from IAIS and IIF: GRA may not have binding authority, but through inclusive governance it can achieve broad buy-in so that its outputs carry weight. We recommend GRA establish itself as a non-profit international alliance (possibly under Swiss law or as a 501(c)(3) in the US with international charter elements) that explicitly recognizes sovereign entities as founding members. This would elevate its credibility above a typical NGO. In governance design, GRA should incorporate checks and balances (public and private co-chairing, rotating regional representation, technical advisory committees) to balance innovation with trust – much like IDF’s co-leadership by insurance and UN actors has built trust across sectors[21][22]. 

Capital and Innovation Accelerator Programs 

A critical differentiator among organizations is whether they actively mobilize capital or catalyze innovative projects, rather than solely setting standards or providing analysis. 

Limited Capital Role – Professional Societies: Organizations like PRMIA, GARP, and RIMS generally do not deploy capital or run accelerators. Their budgets are directed to member services (exams, events, publications), and they do not provide funding for external projects. At most, they may offer scholarships (e.g. exam fee waivers for students or developing country professionals) or small innovation awards. For instance, RIMS sometimes sponsors student risk case competitions, and PRMIA’s Institute may produce research grants on risk topics. But these are minor compared to entities whose core mission involves financing risk solutions. 

Policy & Industry Groups: IAIS and IIF also do not have dedicated capital programs – their influence is through policy. IAIS does coordinate with bodies like the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) to build capacity, but it does not fund implementation projects. One exception: IAIS has an Implementation Partners Forum and supports initiatives like the A2ii (Access to Insurance Initiative) which, with donor support, helps countries develop inclusive insurance – but A2ii is a separate entity. IAIS might endorse “innovation-friendly” regulation (for example, encouraging sandbox approaches for InsurTech) but leaves actual accelerators to others. The IIF, being a lobbying group, similarly doesn’t fund innovation projects, but it frequently showcases member innovations through working groups (for example, it has had a Digital Finance working group focusing on fintech and RegTech developments). In 2023, IIF held roundtables on topics like central bank digital currencies and climate risk solutions, helping share innovative ideas, but it doesn’t provide capital. That said, IIF’s research can spur innovation indirectly – e.g. its papers on debt for climate swaps or on mobilizing private finance for emerging markets provide blueprints that institutions then act on. 

Public-Private Partnerships and Multilaterals: This is where we see explicit programs to fund or accelerate risk solutions. The IDF has leveraged both industry and donor funding to implement projects in developing countries. By 2023, IDF reported 42 active projects across 30 countries aimed at disaster resilience and insurance solutions[85]. These projects often involve developing new insurance products (like drought insurance for farmers, flood insurance for cities) and require funding for risk modelling, capacity-building, and premium support. Rather than a classical “accelerator” for startups, IDF’s projects function as pilots to demonstrate innovative risk financing. They are backed by co-investment from the insurance industry (>20 companies contributed ~$30 million collectively to sovereign DRF programmes) and grants from governments (e.g. Germany’s BMZ committed €21 million to the Global Risk Modelling Alliance (GRMA) initiative under IDF)[86]. The GRMA, launched in late 2022, is essentially an innovation program to develop open risk models and data for climate/disaster risks in climate-vulnerable countries, enabling local innovation in insurance products[87]. The InsuResilience Partnership also channels capital – through its associated trust funds like the InsuResilience Solutions Fund (funding innovative climate risk insurance development) and the Global Shield program launched in 2022. The Global Shield Against Climate Risks, initiated by G7 and V20 nations, set up a financing facility (managed by the World Bank and others) to provide fast finance after disasters and support scaling of climate insurance. In 2023–2025, Global Shield began financing packages for countries (e.g. providing premium subsidies and capital for social protection-linked insurance)[88][89]. These efforts effectively act as accelerators by injecting funds into new risk transfer solutions that would not emerge via market forces alone. 

The World Bank itself has significant capital-oriented programs. Its Global Risk Financing Facility (GRiF), mentioned earlier, is a multi-donor fund of >$200 million that awards grants to test and scale up disaster risk finance innovations (like the Malawi social safety net insurance, or parametric flood insurance for poor households in South Asia). Additionally, the Bank routinely acts as an arranger for catastrophe bonds – e.g. it helped Mexico issue multi-peril cat bonds, and in 2023 it intermediated Jamaica’s first cat bond for coastal hurricane risk. By providing its capital market expertise and often some financial backstop or contingent credit, the Bank accelerates the entry of countries into these markets. Another angle is the innovation in response products: after COVID-19, the Bank created a Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) which experimented with pandemic bonds and insurance (though with mixed results). Lessons from that are being used to design improved pandemic finance tools in 2023-24 in collaboration with WHO and reinsurance companies. 

Corporate Sector: Moody’s and Marsh pursue innovation largely via acquisitions, partnerships, and internal R&D. Moody’s, for example, acquired multiple startups in the climate risk data space (like Four Twenty Seven and RMS) to boost innovation in its offerings[90]. Marsh sponsors insurtech competitions and often partners with tech firms to enhance analytics (for instance, collaborating with startup FloodFlash on parametric flood covers, or with tech firms for cyber risk modeling). Marsh also established a Digital Labs unit to develop new client tools (e.g. Bluestream – a digital broker platform for small business insurance). These are internal innovation accelerators to improve Marsh’s commercial services, not open programs for the broader community. However, Marsh does coordinate with public bodies on innovative programs – for example, Marsh helped the City of New York design a city-led pandemic business insurance program in 2021, and in 2023 it worked with African Risk Capacity Ltd. to expand drought insurance parametric covers for African governments. Such collaborations effectively transfer Marsh’s expertise to novel contexts, accelerating adoption of new solutions (but funded by clients or donors, not Marsh’s capital). 

Swiss Re has long engaged in innovation – historically, it incubated insurance-linked securities markets (Sigma reports of the late 1990s helped kickstart cat bonds). The Swiss Re Institute partners with emerging insurtechs and academic labs (e.g. sponsoring an InsurTech accelerator or collaborating on a cyber risk modeling challenge with universities)[28]. Swiss Re also runs Corporate Ventures that invest in innovative startups relevant to risk (for example, investing in crop insurance tech platforms or climate analytics startups). These investments accelerate innovation in the industry at large. In 2023, Swiss Re joined other insurers in the B3i blockchain consortium (an effort to innovate policy contracts and claims via distributed ledger) – though B3i struggled financially, it was an example of industry-led acceleration of new tech for risk. 

Key Takeaway: GRA’s positioning can be bolstered by a proactive capital/innovation program. Where most existing alliances either lack such programs or operate them in silos (IDF for insurance, World Bank for sovereign DRF, etc.), GRA could establish a unified Risk Innovation Accelerator. This might include: a pooled Innovation Fund contributed by member governments and institutions to seed pilot projects (e.g. new parametric insurance for emerging risks like pandemics or cyber catastrophes), a sandbox environment for testing innovative risk solutions across sectors (with regulatory support from member regulators), and an incubator for open-source risk tools (building on GRA’s open digital ethos). Given GRA’s focus on technology and finance convergence, it could emulate the GRMA but on a broader scale – providing HPC resources, data, and grants for teams to develop risk models or financial instruments that address gaps (for instance, a global resilience index for supply chain risk or parametric climate bonds for cities). By doing so, GRA would not only set standards or convene, but directly catalyze new solutions. Best practices from IDF/InsuResilience suggest combining donor funding with industry expertise[86][91]; GRA should similarly leverage its diverse membership (governments can offer funding or guarantees, insurers can offer technical pricing skills, banks can structure products, tech firms can build platforms) in joint innovation ventures. Importantly, any capital deployment should be governed transparently and aimed at public-good outcomes to maintain “sovereign-grade” trust. GRA could, for example, manage a fund that co-invests alongside development banks in resilience projects, ensuring alignment with public policy goals (here partnership with World Bank or regional dev banks would help). This will position GRA as not just a thinker and talker, but a doer in closing protection gaps and driving innovation in risk finance. 

Education and Certification 

Professional Credentials and Training: Education is a pillar for several organizations, especially PRMIA, GARP, and RIMS. PRMIA and GARP have formal certification programs that shape the skillset of risk managers globally. The PRM designation and GARP’s FRM are rigorous programs covering financial risk theory, quantitative methods, regulations, and ethics[92][8]. Maintaining these designations involves continuing education (PRM holders need 20 hours of Continuing Risk Learning annually)[93], which the associations facilitate through webinars, courses, and conferences. Both bodies have also expanded into niche certificates reflecting new industry needs – e.g. GARP’s Sustainability and Climate Risk (SCR) certificate was introduced around 2020 to educate professionals on climate-related financial risk, a growth area in 2023–25 as regulators and firms demand climate risk expertise. PRMIA’s new Operational Risk Manager certificate (launched 2022) addresses the heightened focus on operational resilience and risk culture post-COVID[32]. These programs have no counterpart in public-sector alliances; they uniquely target individuals’ professional development. RIMS, while smaller in scale, offers the RIMS-CRMP certification which is ANSI-accredited and focused on practical implementation of enterprise risk management[36]. RIMS also partners with universities for risk management programs and provides in-person workshops on topics like risk appetite, insurance purchasing, and strategic risk analysis. 

Regulatory and Policy Training: Organizations like IAIS, IIF, and WEF do not provide certifications, but they deliver specialized training and knowledge resources for their constituencies. IAIS, through the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) at BIS, offers seminars and online tutorials to insurance supervisors on implementing IAIS standards (for example, how to conduct an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment – ORSA – or how to supervise an insurer’s cyber risk). In late 2023, IAIS and A2ii co-convened a workshop series for 100+ insurance supervisors on climate risk modeling and the use of insurance data for disaster risk reduction[94][95]. Such capacity-building ensures that regulators in developing markets can keep up with emerging risks and apply global best practices. IIF, though primarily an advocacy group, hosts frequent webinars and roundtables for members on technical topics (like one might see an IIF webinar on new Basel rules or on stress testing models). These often feature experts from member firms or multilateral bodies and are educational in nature. IIF does not test or certify participants; the emphasis is on informing members so they can implement better risk management internally and lobby more effectively externally. WEF focuses on informal education via insight reports and interactive tools. For example, WEF’s “Strategic Intelligence” online platform allows members to explore interconnected risk factors via curated articles and data visualizations (a self-learning tool for executives). WEF also runs the Global Leadership Fellows program (not specific to risk, but a fellowship that includes risk and global affairs education for young leaders). Additionally, WEF publishes practical guides such as “Building a Business Resilience Framework” in collaboration with consultants, which serve as playbooks for organizations. 

Academic and Client Education by Firms: Swiss Re Institute explicitly brands itself as a partner in risk education. It operates the Swiss Re Institute Campus, offering open programs where insurance professionals (and sometimes regulators or academics) can enroll in training courses on topics like capital modeling, risk transfer solutions, and scenario analysis[62][63]. Swiss Re’s “Book a training” initiative suggests it provides structured courses (some possibly in partnership with institutes like LMU Munich or the Institute of Insurance Economics in Switzerland). These are not certifications, but participants receive deep technical training direct from practitioners. Moody’s Analytics (encompassing RMS) also provides training solutions – for instance, they offer e-learning and instructor-led courses on how to use their modeling software, on climate risk management, and on credit analysis. In 2023, Moody’s launched a training program called “Measuring and Managing Climate Risk” aimed at financial institution staff, covering climate policy, climate data, and integration into risk management[96]. While not a certification, it equips professionals to better use Moody’s climate risk tools and apply them in decision-making. Marsh and other brokers often provide client education as a value-add – e.g. Marsh’s “Resilience Academy” (if informally named) where they guide clients’ risk teams on enterprise risk management practices or how to navigate insurance claims. Marsh publishes handbooks and briefings (like the 2024 Marsh McLennan Handbook on Parametric Insurance[97]) which, while marketing, also serve to educate risk managers and government stakeholders about new risk transfer concepts. 

Public Sector and Community Education: The World Bank’s DRF team heavily emphasizes government capacity building. They produce knowledge products (toolkits, policy notes) and run collaborative communities of practice (e.g. the Financial Protection Forum website collects case studies and a Q&A community for policymakers). World Bank projects usually include training components – for example, when helping Indonesia with a state assets insurance program, they train officials on insurance program administration[98]. After implementing a parametric insurance in Malawi for social safety nets, they documented the process in a learning paper for other countries to emulate[70]. Similarly, InsuResilience has an Academy initiative with online courses on climate risk finance, often conducted via partners like the UNDP or regional risk pools. 

Another aspect is community and public awareness. RIMS and WEF often stress the importance of risk literacy at the leadership level. RIMS, for instance, engages with C-suite and boards to educate them on the value of ERM, publishing an annual Executive Report on Risk. WEF’s Global Risks Report, as a widely publicized document, indirectly educates the public and policymakers (WEF 2025 Risks Report highlighted that conflict and geopolitical tensions are the top short-term risks, which informs public discourse on resource allocation[99]). 

Key Takeaway: Education and certification efforts are vital for building a pipeline of risk experts and for harmonizing understanding of risk across sectors. GRA has an opportunity to carve out a niche educational role that complements others. Given GRA’s cross-sector ambition, it could develop a “Sovereign Risk & Resilience” certification or training program tailored for public-sector officials and private partners working on systemic risk solutions. This would address a gap: current certifications (FRM, PRM) focus on financial institutions’ needs, while something like a Global Resilience Professional program could blend financial risk, disaster risk reduction, climate science, and policy/regulation knowledge. GRA’s alliance structure means it could convene experts from IAIS, IIF, academia, etc., to jointly create curriculum and case studies, lending it authority. GRA might also establish an open online knowledge hub – analogous to WEF’s platforms – where members can access best practices, model codes, and policy templates (leveraging its open-source approach to share not just software but also open educational resources). Furthermore, GRA could partner with existing bodies: for instance, endorse PRMIA/GARP certifications for technical skills, and add a layer of policy-oriented training (perhaps in collaboration with the World Bank and UNDRR) to educate on integrating risk financing into national planning. Ultimately, GRA should aim to be seen as the place where both a central bank governor and an insurance CEO can learn about cutting-edge risk solutions side by side. This dual focus – technical training and leadership education – will strengthen GRA’s reputation as an alliance with technical depth and policy insight, which in turn reinforces its sovereign-grade positioning. 

Partnerships and Influence Networks 

Bridging Sectors and Shaping Agendas: The influence of these organizations often derives from their partnerships and convening power. PRMIA and GARP influence primarily through their large alumni base; while they do not directly partner with governments, their standards are recognized by regulators and firms globally. For example, many banks require FRM or PRM certifications for risk staff, indirectly aligning industry practice with these bodies’ curricula. They also partner with universities (accrediting certain Masters programs for PRM exam exemptions) and collaborate with each other occasionally (PRMIA and GARP have both been consulted by regulators on talent standards). However, their role in policy influence is limited relative to others. 

RIMS engages with government and regulators occasionally on matters affecting corporate insurance and risk management. For instance, RIMS has provided input to regulators on insurance rules (as cited in a Canadian regulator’s review of auto insurance[100]), and post-2008 RIMS advocated for the U.S. to extend a federal backstop for terrorism insurance (TRIA) on behalf of corporate buyers. It has local chapters that liaise with municipal or state authorities about risk management in the public sector. Overall, RIMS acts as a voice of the risk manager community, but on the global stage its influence is modest compared to WEF or IIF. 

IAIS has extensive partnerships by design – it coordinates closely with other international standard-setters (Basel Committee, IOSCO) and financial stability bodies. IAIS is a member of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), bringing the insurance supervisory perspective to cross-sectoral issues[101][102]. It also works with the IMF and World Bank in the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), ensuring its standards are used in country evaluations. Through the Sustainable Insurance Forum (a network under IAIS), it partners with UN agencies on climate risk guidance for insurers. These connections give IAIS outsized influence: when it rolls out a major initiative like the global Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), it does so in consultation with G20 finance ministries and the insurance industry, affecting capital flows and market stability globally. 

The IIF leverages partnerships with national and regional industry associations (e.g. SIFMA in the US, AFME in Europe, ASIFMA in Asia) under the umbrella of the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA)[103]. By aligning with GFMA, IIF ensures a coordinated advocacy front on issues like market fragmentation (as we saw in the 2025 joint paper by IIF, BPI, and GFMA calling for regulatory cooperation)[42][44]. IIF also works closely with the Institute of International Finance’s Emerging Markets dialogues – essentially partnering with G20 presidencies and institutions like the IMF on sovereign debt and capital flow issues. It’s not unusual for IIF executives to be invited as the sole industry representatives in discussions at the IMF or OECD. Such influence is bolstered by relationships: e.g. IIF’s President (Tim Adams) is a former U.S. Treasury official, exemplifying how IIF straddles public-private spheres. 

World Economic Forum is perhaps unparalleled in convening public-private partnerships. At Davos and other WEF forums, heads of state, ministers, CEOs, and civil society leaders meet under WEF’s auspices. WEF’s risk initiatives often involve partnerships with specific firms and agencies – for example, the Global Risks Report is produced with strategic partners Marsh McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group, reflecting collaboration between WEF and industry in analyzing risks[104][18]. WEF also partners with the UN on various campaigns (like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – WEF has promoted private sector engagement in Sendai targets). A concrete example of influence: WEF’s promotion of the term “resilience” and frameworks around it has permeated into the G20 agenda and numerous national strategies. In 2023, WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution worked with governments on using big data for disaster early warning – blending tech and policy in partnership. Thus, WEF shapes global norms by aligning messaging and efforts across diverse partners. 

The Insurance Development Forum (IDF) is itself a partnership and extends that by coordinating multiple stakeholders on specific projects. It has an MOU with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and German government (BMZ) for the “Tripartite Agreement” – an arrangement where IDF’s industry members work with UNDP country offices and governments to design insurance solutions (77 UNDP staff were involved in IDF projects by 2023)[105][106]. The IDF also partners with academic and data initiatives: for example, it supports the Global Resilience Index Initiative (GRII), which is building open-source risk metrics via a coalition of insurers, Google, and research institutions[107]. Additionally, IDF engages in high-level advocacy partnerships like the V20 (Climate Vulnerable Forum) and the Bridgetown Initiative (a proposal to reform development finance for climate resilience). In 2023, IDF collaborated with the proponents of the Bridgetown Initiative to publish proposals on using insurance as a catalyst for development[108][109]. This indicates IDF’s influential role in linking the insurance industry’s capabilities to broader financial reforms and climate action debates. 

InsuResilience similarly thrives on partnerships. It brings together the G20, V20, World Bank, NGOs (e.g. Red Cross Climate Centre), and the private sector under a shared vision. Through its annual forums and workstreams, it has driven coordination among reinsurers and donors to expand African Risk Capacity, to pilot microinsurance with NGOs, and to integrate climate risk insurance into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. InsuResilience’s Vision 2025 explicitly calls for leveraging partners to deliver climate and disaster risk finance solutions to 500 million poor people[24]. Its influence is evidenced by climate finance discussions – the presence of insurance/risk finance as a key topic in COP negotiations owes much to InsuResilience and IDF advocacy. 

Moody’s RMS wields influence through the technical backbone it provides. It partners with insurers on model development (e.g. working with NOAA and academic experts to improve hurricane models), and with governments by contributing expertise (after major disasters, RMS often partners with local governments to estimate losses or advise on rebuilding standards). RMS’s models have effectively influenced building codes and land-use policy in hazard-prone areas (because the modeled loss projections highlight problem areas). Also, Moody’s ESG and RMS teams collaborate with central banks (some central banks in 2024 used Moody’s climate risk data to run economy-wide stress tests). Moody’s partnership with the NGFS (Network for Greening the Financial System) – an alliance of central banks – to share climate risk assessment methodologies is notable, as it places Moody’s analytical tools at the heart of sovereign and bank risk oversight. 

Marsh and Swiss Re heavily influence risk policy by virtue of market position and thought leadership. Marsh McLennan’s research arm co-authors the WEF Risks Report, ensuring its perspective reaches global policymakers[18]. Marsh’s Public Sector practice works directly with governments on structuring risk transfer (e.g. advising FEMA in the US or the World Bank on pandemic insurance), effectively shaping how governments manage risk. For example, Marsh helped design the UK’s Flood Re pool and has been advocating for a similar public-private pandemic risk pool; its proposals are often taken seriously by treasury departments. Swiss Re, along with Munich Re, is part of the Geneva Association (a think tank of leading insurers) which produces influential research on topics like climate change’s impact on insurance. Swiss Re’s data on protection gaps is cited by the UN and World Bank to argue for more investment in insurance solutions[60][61]. Additionally, Swiss Re executives sit on boards like IDF and participated in creating the Insurance Principles for Sustainable Insurance (PSI) under UNEP – extending their influence to sustainability policy. 

World Bank DRF programs inherently involve partnership: they coordinate with finance ministries, disaster management agencies, regional blocs (e.g. ASEAN for SEADRIF), and private insurers/reinsurers who underwrite the risk transfer. The Bank often convenes those parties, effectively acting as a neutral broker. Its influence is such that G20 finance ministers often request World Bank input on disaster risk finance (e.g. a 2023 report to the G20 on catastrophe risk pools recommended expanding them with World Bank technical support[110]). Furthermore, the Bank’s partnership with the IMF in promoting the inclusion of climate and disaster risks in macro-fiscal frameworks means its DRF advocacy is now influencing sovereign debt sustainability analysis and budget planning in vulnerable countries. 

Key Takeaway: Partnerships amplify each entity’s reach. For GRA, forging strategic partnerships will be essential to quickly attain credibility and global influence. Key moves could include: formalizing ties with the United Nations system (e.g. aligning GRA’s mission with the Sendai Framework via UNDRR partnership, or partnering with UNEP for sustainable finance integration), working with the G20/G7 to secure political endorsements (similar to InsuResilience’s birth under German G20 presidency), and teaming up with technical leaders (for instance, collaborating with WEF’s platforms to co-host risk dialogues, or with IDF to co-develop risk models so as not to duplicate efforts). 

Given GRA’s broad scope, it should have a foot in both the finance/banking circle (Basel, IIF, IMF) and the insurance/risk transfer circle (IAIS, IDF, InsuResilience). This could mean establishing observer or liaison status with IAIS and the Basel Committee to infuse cross-sector perspective (bridging banking and insurance risk concerns like systemic cyber risk or climate risk that span sectors). It should engage the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) to integrate climate-risk methodologies and ensure its frameworks meet regulatory expectations. On the industry side, partnering with firms like Moody’s, Marsh, and Swiss Re on open initiatives (for example, inviting them to contribute models or data to GRA’s open digital platform in exchange for shared insights) would accelerate technical development and lend weight to GRA’s outputs. 

Perhaps most critical is government partnerships. To be sovereign-grade, GRA should involve governments not just as members but as co-creators. This could involve partnering with interested countries to pilot GRA-developed tools (e.g. if GRA creates an open-source HPC risk model for flood forecasting, partner with a country’s meteorological and finance agencies to implement it operationally). Demonstrating successful public-sector uptake through partnerships will validate GRA’s model. Also, aligning with multilateral financing – for instance, working with the World Bank to house a GRA trust fund or project – could both bring funding and show that GRA complements existing institutions rather than competing. 

In sum, GRA must embed itself in the existing ecosystem of risk governance through partnerships. It should strive to be the connective tissue that links disparate groups – much as IDF’s mission states: “optimise and extend the use of insurance and its related risk management capabilities to build greater resilience for vulnerable communities, by coordinating activities and mobilising resources among governments, industry, and international institutions”[111][23]. GRA can adopt a similar partnership ethos but on a broader canvas (not just insurance, but all risk domains). By doing so, it will enhance its influence and avoid siloed efforts. 

Digital Infrastructure and Tools 

In today’s digital age, a key differentiator for any risk alliance is the quality of its technological infrastructure – be it data platforms, modeling tools, or knowledge-sharing portals. 

Data and Analytics Platforms: Several organizations have developed digital portals to disseminate data or enable collaboration. GARP recently introduced a Climate Risk Index digital tool and a benchmarking platform for banks to anonymously compare risk metrics (the GARP Benchmarking Initiative)[35]. While these are member-only tools, they show how a professional body can curate data for collective insight. RIMS offers the Risk Maturity Model (RMM) as an online assessment – a simple but effective tool that organizations can use freely to get a risk management maturity score[112]. This RMM tool, recognized as best practice by national bodies, is essentially a digital self-diagnostic that spreads risk management culture widely at low cost. 

IAIS built the Global Insurance Information Database (GIID), a secure data repository where member regulators submit insurance market data (premiums, claims, solvency ratios) which IAIS analysts use to produce the Global Insurance Market Report and identify trends. IAIS is exploring more real-time data sharing platforms, particularly for monitoring systemic risk among large insurers. However, access to such databases is limited to regulators. IAIS has also experimented with a collaborative web platform for drafting supervisory guidance (so members from different countries can co-create documents online). 

The IIF provides interactive charts and datasets for members on its website – e.g. the Capital Flows Tracker and Global Debt Monitor are updated quarterly and allow members to visualize emerging market capital flow volatility or global debt levels in an interactive manner. IIF’s research portal is a digital library for members, with filters by topic (sustainable finance, digital assets, etc.) making it easier to retrieve insights. But again, these are behind membership login. One notable digital collaboration: in 2022-23, IIF partnered with the Edmund Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard to create a Climate Finance Values Tool, a digital tool to help investors and policymakers gauge their alignment on climate finance principles (illustrating how an association can co-create digital tools with academia). 

World Economic Forum heavily leverages digital platforms. Its Strategic Intelligence platform is essentially a dynamic knowledge map of issues (including risk interconnections) – users can click on “Global Risks” and see an interactive web of related topics and links to latest research, drawing from WEF’s vast network. WEF’s TopLink platform is a community hub where members (e.g. in the Resilience Consortium) log in to share updates, documents, and plan meetings. WEF also uses crowd-sourcing digital platforms: UpLink is an innovation crowdsourcing site where entrepreneurs submit solutions (including those for climate and resilience challenges), and the best are showcased/integrated into WEF initiatives. In 2023, UpLink ran a challenge calling for data analytics solutions to disaster preparedness – effectively an open digital accelerator. These WEF tools engage thousands globally and ensure continuous, real-time collaboration beyond physical events. 

Specialized Risk Modeling Tech: Moody’s RMS stands out with its RiskLink / RiskModeler software suite. Historically installed on-premises, RMS has now a cloud-based Risk Intelligence platform that allows users to run models on the cloud, integrate their own data, and even plug in third-party or custom models alongside RMS’s. In 2023, Moody’s RMS Version 23 introduced enhanced climate change projections and a unified platform where users can toggle between current climate risk and 2050 projected risk for a given portfolio[50]. RMS’s platform is not open, but it’s pervasive in the insurance industry. Additionally, RMS developed Exposure Data Schema standards that are widely used (allowing interoperability of risk data across companies). Marsh and Guy Carpenter (Marsh’s reinsurance arm) have proprietary analytics platforms: e.g. Marsh Analytics Platform (MAP) integrates a client’s insurance policy data with stochastic loss modeling to identify gaps and optimize limits. Marsh also launched tools like FloodScore (with a tech partner) to provide address-level flood risk scores globally – a data service for clients. Guy Carpenter has a platform called GC AdvantagePoint that aggregates catastrophe modeling results and financial analysis to advise insurers on reinsurance purchases. Marsh’s Cyber Catalyst program is a digital forum where it evaluates cybersecurity products and gives a seal of approval – indirectly an infrastructure to reduce cyber risk (though not a tool per se, it’s an information platform). 

Swiss Re Institute introduced the sigma Explorer, a new online portal in 2024 that houses decades of insurance data and economic indicators, available to clients and researchers[113]. Sigma Explorer allows users to visualize data like insurance penetration by country, natural catastrophe losses by peril, etc., with interactive charts. This modernizes how Swiss Re shares its insights – moving from static PDF reports to a data-driven web tool. The Institute is also involved in the Open-source risk modeling movement: Swiss Re contributed to the Oasis Loss Modeling Framework, an open-source platform for catastrophe modeling, aiming to foster more transparency and innovation in risk models. In 2023, Swiss Re, via the GRMA (Global Risk Modelling Alliance) partnership, has been working to publish some of its hazard data (like flood zone maps, vulnerability functions) as open resources for developing countries[87]. 

World Bank has developed various digital toolkits. For instance, the PCRAFI Platform (for the Pacific catastrophe risk pool) is essentially a GIS-based risk assessment tool developed with Bank support to help Pacific Island countries see their exposure and model losses; it’s accessible to those governments as a planning tool. The Bank’s DRFI Analytics team has built a “Sovereign Disaster Risk Financing Diagnostic” tool – a spreadsheet-based model that countries use to simulate how different financing instruments would perform under various disaster scenarios (this was referenced in assessments for 20+ countries as noted)[114]. On a simpler level, the Bank’s websites like Financial Protection Forum act as digital hubs for documents, forums, and an expert directory in the DRF space. In 2025, with the launch of the Global Shield Financing Facility, the Bank is likely developing a portal to manage requests and payouts for climate disaster support (though details are emerging). 

One often overlooked but critical piece of digital infrastructure is open data standards and licenses. Many alliances realize that to collaborate, they need common standards. The IDF’s GRMA is working on open exposure and hazard data standards, so models can be more easily shared[87]. InsuResilience launched an Open Risk Modelling Hub under its Innovation facility, where different risk models can be accessed on a common interface by countries – it’s essentially a precursor to what GRA envisions on a larger scale. 

Key Takeaway: Digital infrastructure is where GRA can truly distinguish itself. GRA’s mission explicitly emphasizes open-source innovation and shared digital infrastructure using HPC, cloud, AI, etc., to enable collaborative risk solutions[115][116]. The benchmarking above shows that while some organizations have digital tools, none combine open access, cross-domain data integration, and cutting-edge tech in one platform. GRA should aim to build a Global Risk Data & Modeling Platform that is to risk management what Linux is to operating systems – an open, extensible backbone. This platform could host: a library of risk models (from climate models to financial stress models) that members contribute and co-develop; real data streams (satellite, economic, insurance loss data) accessible under open licenses for research and product design; and collaborative modeling environments (leveraging HPC cloud) where teams from different sectors can run simulations together. Imagine a government hydromet agency, a bank’s risk team, and a university climate lab jointly working on the same flood risk model via GRA’s cloud platform – this would break silos in a way current setups don’t allow. 

To succeed, GRA should adopt and advance standards (like Oasis LMF standards, or integrate the work of GRMA and GRII) rather than reinvent wheels. It can partner with initiatives like GRII (Global Resilience Index) which is trying to create a “common language of risk” through open tools[107]. GRA’s platform might incorporate resilience indices (such as Swiss Re’s insurance resilience index data[60][61]) alongside macroeconomic stress models, creating a more holistic view. Crucially, GRA’s commitment to open-source licensing and peer-driven governance of its tech[117] means it must ensure the platform’s core remains vendor-agnostic and transparent, to build trust among sovereign users. This is a bold step beyond what, say, RMS or Marsh do (their platforms are proprietary), but it aligns with modern trends in open gov data and open modeling (even central banks via NGFS are sharing climate scenarios publicly). 

By providing state-of-the-art digital infrastructure, GRA will enable continuous innovation among members. Members could fork and adapt modules (for local needs) and contribute improvements back – much like open-source software communities[118]. This would vastly speed up development cycles for new risk solutions and ensure that even under-resourced stakeholders can access top-tier tools without prohibitive costs[119][120]. No current alliance offers this level of digital empowerment. If GRA delivers it, combined with training people to use it, it will set a new benchmark for how global communities tackle risk (essentially operationalizing the concept of “open science for risk and resilience” in a practical way[121]). 

Finally, GRA should ensure its digital infrastructure is tied to decision-making frameworks (policy and finance). For example, it could integrate a clause library for risk finance contracts (so members can easily implement parametric cover triggers or bond covenants aligned with GRA standards) – speeding up legal clarity in deals. Or embed early warning systems and response protocols on the platform (since GRA’s scope includes early warning and critical infrastructure protection[122][123]). This way, the platform isn’t just for analysts, but also for emergency planners and financial decision-makers, truly a comprehensive digital toolkit for risk governance. 

Positioning the GRA: Best Practices and Strategic Recommendations 

Drawing on the above benchmarking, the Global Risks Alliance (GRA) should integrate the strengths of existing models while avoiding their silos, thereby positioning itself as a unified, sovereign-grade alliance with unmatched technical and policy prowess. The following recommendations highlight how GRA can become “best-in-class”: 

• 1. Embrace an Inclusive Multisector Membership Model: GRA’s membership should span governments (finance ministries, regulators, disaster management agencies), private sector (banks, insurers, asset owners, fintechs), academia, and civil society, mirroring the “quintuple helix” it envisions[26]. To be sovereign-grade, give sovereign members a formal governance role (e.g. a Council of state representatives) so that governments see GRA as their alliance, not just another NGO. Simultaneously, allow corporations and institutions to join as partners contributing expertise and funds (like IIF’s and IDF’s models combined). This broad base will foster cross-pollination: e.g. a pension fund and a central bank might collaborate through GRA on a common climate risk project – interactions that rarely happen in other fora. Eligibility criteria can be broad (any entity committed to risk resilience), but tiered membership could ensure manageability (e.g. founding members vs. general members, or separate college for public sector and private sector to balance interests). By doing so, GRA distinguishes itself as the alliance that breaks down silos – no other body systematically includes all these sectors under one roof. 

• 2. Establish Robust Governance with Sovereign Legitimacy and Clear Legal Status: GRA should formalize its structure either via a treaty or as an international non-profit recognized by major economies. The ideal might be an instrument akin to the Financial Stability Board’s charter (which, while not a treaty, was endorsed by G20 leaders, granting it authority). Short of a treaty, incorporating as a Swiss Verein or foundation (taking cues from WEF and IAIS) with a statute that involves governments will provide legal clarity[78]. Governance mechanisms should balance stakeholders: for example, a Governing Board with seats for government representatives (sovereign voice), industry leaders, and eminent academics; a technical advisory committee (like IAIS’s committees or WEF’s expert panels) to ensure rigor; and a consultative assembly of all members for transparency. Rotation and regional representation will be important for legitimacy (learn from IAIS and IIF to avoid domination by one region or sector). Also define decision-making clearly – e.g. which decisions are consensus vs. majority vote – to avoid paralysis. A well-crafted governance will give GRA credibility to interface with bodies like the UN, IMF, and G20 on equal footing. Also, set up accountability measures: annual reports (like IIF and IDF produce[124]) to members and the public, external audits, and perhaps independent evaluation of its impact (to maintain trust). With legal clarity and strong governance, GRA can claim the “sovereign-grade” mantle, meaning countries can confidently rely on its outputs (standards, data) as they would those from official institutions. 

• 3. Deliver Superior Service Offerings by Integrating Technical Depth with Policy Alignment: GRA’s programs should marry the technical excellence of firms like RMS/Swiss Re with the policy relevance of bodies like IAIS/World Bank. Concretely: 

• Develop global risk standards and frameworks that members can adopt. For instance, GRA could publish a Sovereign Risk Resilience Framework aligning macro-fiscal risk management (a concern of finance ministries) with micro-level risk transfer solutions (a concern of insurers). This could be analogous to IAIS’s principles but broader – setting out best practices for integrated risk governance across public and private spheres. If widely endorsed by its diverse membership, such GRA standards could become the go-to reference for crafting national risk finance strategies, city resilience plans, etc. 

• Offer technical toolkits and analytics far beyond what others do, thanks to its open-source digital platform. GRA can provide each member country or institution access to state-of-the-art risk models (for climate, pandemic, cyber, etc.) which many developing states currently lack. By doing so under an alliance, it ensures these tools come with capacity building and peer support, not just one-off consultancy. This depth in analytics (HPC, AI models as described in GRA’s mission[115][118]) combined with policy guidance (like how to integrate model outputs into budgeting, regulation, investment decisions) will make GRA’s offering unique. Essentially, GRA can be a technical secretariat for members, performing analyses or model runs on collective behalf – something like a global risk intelligence service feeding into member decision processes. 

• Provide advisory and implementation support similar to World Bank’s but quicker and more cross-cutting. For example, if a member wants to issue a climate resilience bond, GRA could convene experts from a major bank (member), an insurer, and a government peer who’s done it before, to jointly advise and even design the bond. Acting as a facilitator rather than a traditional lender or consultant gives GRA flexibility and neutrality. The alliance format also means any solution can be scaled or replicated among members, using GRA’s network to propagate innovation. 

• Continue and expand professional education: Perhaps create a GRA Academy focusing on interdisciplinary risk management (covering finance, science, and policy). Issue micro-credentials or joint certificates with PRMIA/GARP for specialized areas (e.g. “Certified Climate Risk Strategist – GRA” in partnership with existing risk bodies, but adding sovereign context). Also target policymakers with executive education (workshops for parliamentarians or ministers on risk-financing decisions, for instance, drawing on WEF’s model of engaging leadership). 

• 4. Mobilize Capital and Innovation through Collaborative Programs: To be truly impactful, GRA should not just advise on risk financing but help mobilize and channel capital to where it’s needed for resilience. Building on the IDF/InsuResilience approach, GRA can coordinate multi-partner financing initiatives: for example, launch a Global Resilience Catalyst Fund where member governments and institutions pool resources that can co-finance risk reduction and risk transfer projects. With GRA’s broad membership, it could, say, raise a fund where development banks, insurers, and philanthropic sources all contribute, and which provides matching funds or premium support for innovative insurance schemes (like backing new regional risk pools for epidemic risks or supporting local parametric insurance for farmers). This way, GRA accelerates innovation by lowering the financial barriers. 

• Additionally, institute an Innovation Challenge program (akin to WEF UpLink or an incubator) to crowdsource solutions from startups and researchers worldwide, with the promise of pilot funding and mentorship via GRA’s network. The top solutions (whether a new risk model, an insurance product for gig workers, a blockchain tool for disaster aid) could be trialed under GRA’s auspices in volunteer member jurisdictions, creating a pipeline of tested innovations. 

• GRA could also facilitate public-private investment partnerships: e.g. connect large asset owners (pension funds in its membership) with resilience project investment opportunities (perhaps via a GRA “resilience investment marketplace” platform). This aligns with the trend of promoting resilience in infrastructure investment and could bring more capital to mitigation/adaptation efforts. 

• Importantly, any capital programs should complement, not duplicate, existing funds (coordinate with World Bank’s GRiF, UN’s Green Climate Fund, etc.). GRA’s advantage is agility and ability to convene unusual coalitions. For instance, GRA might arrange a deal where a tech company provides satellite data, an insurer provides underwriting, and a donor provides subsidy to deliver affordable drought insurance via a mobile app – a kind of composite solution that single-sector players struggle to assemble. By actively brokering such arrangements (and perhaps providing seed grants or guarantee facilities), GRA positions itself as an innovation orchestrator in the risk finance space. 

• 5. Leverage Partnerships to Amplify Influence and Avoid Reinventing Wheels: Rather than operating in isolation, GRA should anchor itself in the global institutional landscape as a partner of choice. Formally, seek endorsements or affiliation with the UN (e.g. become a platform recognized under the UN’s DRR or climate initiatives) to gain political legitimacy. Maintain close ties with standard-setters – for example, coordinate with IAIS and BIS on any financial stability relevant initiatives so that GRA’s work complements official regulatory work (maybe signing an MoU for data sharing or joint research on systemic risks). Use IIF and WEF events to communicate GRA’s agenda to the broader business and policy community; perhaps GRA could co-host a segment at Davos or at the IIF annual meeting focused on integrated risk governance, thereby reaching global influencers. 

• Internally, foster a culture of collaboration not competition: If a member brings an existing tool or project (say, an insurer’s risk model or a government’s pilot program), GRA should incorporate and upscale it under its umbrella instead of duplicating. Many alliance attempts falter by either being redundant or stepping on toes – GRA can avoid this by clearly defining its value-add as the integrator and accelerator, not just another forum. Emulate IDF’s partnership model where dozens of insurers collaborated on 42 projects[85] – GRA can similarly have member-driven project teams, each with a mix of public/private people. This not only yields results but also binds members together in practical work, strengthening the alliance. 

• Public communication is part of influence: GRA should publish high-profile outputs such as an annual Global Sovereign Risk & Resilience Report – akin to WEF’s risk report but emphasizing actionable metrics like how prepared countries are in terms of financial resilience, uptake of risk financing instruments, etc. By citing data from Swiss Re, World Bank and others (with permission), and presenting a composite index (perhaps GRA’s own “Resilience Sovereign-Grade Index”), such a report could become a go-to reference for G20 discussions, much like WEF’s report is for broad risks. If well-partnered (e.g. launched jointly with UN or a presidency), it boosts GRA’s profile and influences the global risk agenda. 

• 6. Build a Cutting-Edge Open Digital Ecosystem: Double down on GRA’s core tech proposition. Ensure that within 1–2 years, GRA’s open digital platform is operational with tangible capabilities: e.g. a repository of at least 5 open-source risk models (perhaps contributed by members from academia or adapted from existing open initiatives) and a data lake of curated risk-related datasets (climate models, historical disaster losses, financial stress indicators) accessible to members. Use modern tech governance: invite members to be part of an “open-source steering committee” for the platform, like how Linux Foundation projects are governed, to manage contributions and quality. Aim to incorporate AI and big-data analytics so that members can, for instance, use machine learning on satellite imagery to inform insurance underwriting or use AI to scan global news for emerging risk signals on the platform. By being on the forefront of tech (quantum computing for risk simulations, as GRA mentions[125], or blockchain for transparent parametric payouts), GRA can provide tools that even large institutions might struggle to develop internally, thus attracting them to rely on the alliance. 

• Crucially, maintain open licensing to encourage wide use. GRA could adopt a model like Creative Commons or GNU licenses for its outputs (so a model developed under GRA can be used and improved by any member). This fosters a community akin to the open-source software world – risk experts globally might volunteer time to GRA projects because they know results won’t be locked behind paywalls. That community energy can far exceed what any single firm’s R&D could achieve. 

• Also consider user-friendly interfaces: it’s not enough to have powerful tools; policymakers must be able to use them. GRA might develop dashboards that translate complex risk analytics into intuitive visuals for decision-makers (learning from WEF’s interactive maps and from insurance industry dashboards). For example, a finance minister could log into a GRA dashboard to see their country’s current disaster fund balance, exposure analysis, and parametric cover status, with policy options if a major shock is forecast. That kind of real-time, integrated view is currently hard to compile – if GRA provides it, it becomes indispensable. 

• 7. Focus on Sovereign-Grade Trust, Transparency, and Legal Clarity: Everything GRA does must pass the “sovereign-grade” test – meaning governments can trust and rely on it as much as they would their own agencies or established multilaterals. This involves: 

• Ensuring data confidentiality and security on shared platforms (so members, especially governments, feel safe contributing data for collective analysis – possibly using agreements akin to IAIS’s data confidentiality rules). 

• Being transparent about funding and decision processes to avoid any perception of undue corporate influence or geopolitical bias. For instance, diversify funding sources (not overly dependent on one donor or one set of industry members) and publicly disclose contributions and potential conflicts. 

• Clarifying legal liability issues: if GRA provides a risk model that governments use, what is GRA’s liability if it’s wrong? Likely none (users assume responsibility), but this should be clearly stated to allay concerns. Also, if GRA is facilitating deals, ensure it has the legal capacity (e.g. can it hold funds, can it sign contracts as an entity? – hence the importance of robust legal status). 

• Aligning with international law and norms: e.g. making sure its initiatives support SDGs, Paris Agreement targets, Sendai Framework targets, etc., to show policy alignment. Perhaps signing a cooperation agreement with the UN or a development bank can embed GRA’s work into the larger legal/policy frameworks for sustainable development and climate action. 

In conclusion, GRA can position itself as a unified alliance surpassing existing models by being holistic (across risk types and sectors), technically avant-garde (open HPC/AI platform), and officially credible (sovereign-backed and policy-linked). By learning from each benchmarked entity – adopting PRMIA/GARP’s rigor in capacity building, IAIS’s legitimacy among regulators, IIF’s convening of finance, WEF’s public-private bridge, IDF/InsuResilience’s action orientation, Moody’s/Marsh/Swiss Re’s analytical sophistication, and World Bank’s implementation know-how – GRA can fill the gaps in the global risk architecture. It should strive to be the go-to alliance when a complex risk emerges or an innovative solution is needed, where members collaboratively “develop, adopt, and implement clause-governed, anticipatory capital deployment” in a coordinated way[126]. 

By 2025 and beyond, if GRA follows these recommendations, it can rightly be viewed as “a superior, unified, sovereign-grade international alliance” – one that provides the trusted forum and tools for multilateral risk governance, underpinned by unparalleled technical depth and clear alignment with global policy objectives, all delivered with the transparency and legitimacy that encourage broad adoption and impact. 

Sources: The analysis above has drawn on information from a range of connected sources, including official websites, reports, and releases of the mentioned organizations, to ensure accuracy and recency. Key references include PRMIA and GARP’s descriptions of their missions and memberships[4][7], RIMS’s profile of its membership and tools[10][112], IAIS’s charter and role as a standard-setter[11][127], IIF’s overview as the global financial industry association[13], WEF’s Global Risks initiative context[20], details on Moody’s RMS solutions[27], Marsh’s parametric and analytics services[52], Swiss Re Institute’s resilience research and education focus[63], and World Bank’s Disaster Risk Finance programs and recent case studies[71][69], among others. These sources reinforce the points made and illustrate the current state of the art in global risk management collaborations. GRA’s own published vision statements[1][115] have been used to align recommendations with its stated goals. The cited evidence throughout this report provides a factual basis for the comparative assessment and the strategic guidance offered to GRA. 

[1] [2] [26] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [125] Global Risks Alliance (GRA) – The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) 

Global Risks Alliance (GRA)

[3] [4] [32] [92] [93] Professional Risk Managers’ International Association – Wikipedia 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Risk_Managers%27_International_Association

[5] Corporate Membership – PRMIA 

https://prmia.org/Public/Public/Membership/Corporate.aspx

[6] [7] [8] [33] [34] [35] [73] [74] Global Association of Risk Professionals – Wikipedia 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Association_of_Risk_Professionals

[9] [10] [36] [37] [75] [76] [100] [112] Risk and Insurance Management Society – Wikipedia 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_and_Insurance_Management_Society

[11] [38] [39] [40] [41] [77] [78] [79] [80] [101] [102] [127] International Association of Insurance Supervisors – Wikipedia 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Insurance_Supervisors

[12] [14] [16] [81] Institute of International Finance – Wikipedia 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_International_Finance

[13] [15] [42] [43] [44] [45] [103]  Global Patchwork of Prudential Rules Undermines Resilience, Hurts Economic Growth – SIFMA – Global Patchwork of Prudential Rules Undermines Resilience, Hurts Economic Growth – SIFMA  

Global Patchwork of Prudential Rules Undermines Resilience, Hurts Economic Growth

[17] [18] Global Risks Report 2025 

https://www.marshmclennan.com/insights/publications/2025/january/global-risks-report.html

[19] Home – Resilience Consortium – The World Economic Forum 

https://initiatives.weforum.org/resilience-consortium/home

[20] [48] 2024 is the year to get serious about risk management. Here’s how 

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/year-2024-serious-risk-management-crisis

[21] [22] [23] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [91] [95] [105] [106] [111] [124]  Annual Report: 2023 In Review – Prevent, Protect, Provoke – Insurance Development Forum  

Annual Report: 2023 In Review – Prevent, Protect, Provoke

[24] InsuResilience Global Partnership (IGP) – GCAP UNFCCC – Initiative 

https://climateaction.unfccc.int/Initiatives?id=InsuResilience_Global_Partnership

[25] About the IGP – InsuResilience Global Partnership 

About the IGP

[27] [49] Moody’s | InsTech 

Moody’s

[28] A risk resilience partnership: Fostering research on systemic risk 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/partnerships/joint-risk-resilience-initiative.html

[29] The Life & Health Insurance Inclusion Radar – Swiss Re 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/health-and-longevity/life-health-insurance-inclusion-radar-publication.html

[30] Swiss Re Institute Resilience Summit 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/conferences/swiss-re-institute-resilience-summit.html

[31] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [98] [114] Insurance and Disaster Risk Finance 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/insurance-and-disaster-risk-finance

[46] Global Risks Report 2025 | World Economic Forum 

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025

[47] Global Risks Initiative – The World Economic Forum 

https://initiatives.weforum.org/global-risks/home

[50] Introducing Moody’s RMS Version 23: Now available 

https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/insurance/introducing-moodys-rms-version-23-now-available.html

[51] [PDF] Moody’s Climate-related Risks and Opportunities Assessment 

https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/hosted-assets/sustainability/2023-Moodys-Climate-related-Risks-Opportunities-Assessment.pdf

[52] [53] [54] Parametrics | Insurance Broking & Risk Management | Marsh 

https://www.marsh.com/en/services/parametrics.html

[55] Risk Analytics | Insurance Broking & Risk Management – Marsh 

https://www.marsh.com/en/services/risk-analytics.html

[56] Navigating a changing risk landscape through data-driven analytics 

https://www.marsh.com/en/services/risk-analytics/insights/navigating-risk-through-data-driven-analytics.html

[57] [PDF] Innovations in nature insurance for business – Marsh McLennan 

https://www.marshmclennan.com/assets/insights/publications/2023/may/2023-rooted-in-resilience-innovations-in-nature-insurance-for-business.pdf

[58] [97] Marsh McLennan Handbook Spotlights Parametrics’ Role in Closing … 

https://www.guycarp.com/insights/2023/04/marsh-mclennan-handbook-spotlights-parametrics-role-in-closing-gaps-building-resilience.html

[59] [60] [61] sigma Resilience Index 2024 – Swiss Re 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/natural-catastrophe-insurance-global-resilience-index-2024.html

[62] [64] Swiss Re Institute | Swiss Re 

https://www.swissre.com/institute

[63] About us | Swiss Re 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/about-us.html

[88] [PDF] Managing Disaster Risks and Financing 

https://www.financeministersforclimate.org/sites/cape/files/inline-files/Coalition_WB%20DRF_Olivier%20Mahul.pdf

[89] Strengthening Financial Resilience against Climate and Disaster … 

https://www.globalshieldfinancingfacility.org/news/strengthening-financial-resilience-against-climate-and-disaster-impacts-key-insights-ur24

[90] [PDF] Moody’s Corporation – Climate Change 2023 

https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/ProductAttachments/Sustainability/2023_moodys_cdp_response.pdf

[94] IDF Reports & Publications Archives – Insurance Development Forum 

https://www.insdevforum.org/knowledge//idf-reports-publications

[96] Measuring and Managing Climate Risk – MOODY’S 

https://payments.moodysanalytics.com/madc/product-details/Measuring-and-Managing-Climate-Risk

[99] The Global Risks Report: These are the top risks facing the world in … 

https://www.zurich.com/knowledge/topics/global-risks/the-global-risks-report-2025

[104] Misperceptions of Risk: How they undermine global risk resilience 

https://www.zurich.com/knowledge/topics/global-risks/misperceptions-of-risk-how-they-undermine-global-risk-resilience

[107] Global Resilience Index Initiative – Resilient Planet Data Hub 

https://resilient-planet-data.org/about

[108] News – Insurance Development Forum 

https://www.insdevforum.org/news

[109] Knowledge Hub Archive – Insurance Development Forum 

https://www.insdevforum.org/knowledge

[110] Catastrophe Risk Pools: World Bank Technical Contribution to the G20 

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ef10a5c6-8e7b-539e-9253-96b5958e7cbf

[113] sigma research | Swiss Re 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research.html

[126] Home – THE GLOBAL RISKS ALLIANCE (GRA) 

Home