Sponsored: Liberty Mutual Insurance

A Year of Opportunity for U.S. Manufacturers

2018 will present both challenges and opportunities for U.S. manufacturers.
By: | February 1, 2018 • 5 min read

2018 is shaping up to be a year of historic shift for U.S. manufacturing. Tax reform, favorable regulatory changes, advances in industrial technology, and an improving economy and unemployment rate all present opportunities for organic growth.

“Many manufacturers expect to increase sales in 2018, both domestically and abroad,” said Stacie Graham, Senior Vice President and General Manager, National Insurance, Central Division, for Liberty Mutual Insurance. “Recent tax and regulatory changes in particular present opportunities to increase exports to international markets.”

But there are persistent operational challenges that could block manufacturers from seizing these opportunities. An industry-wide talent shortage and skills gap hinder growth potential for U.S manufacturers. To overcome them, apprenticeships and efficiency tools like co-bots could be the way forward.

Talent and Skills Shortfall

According to a 2017 report by Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, the U.S. manufacturing industry could be short by about two million workers over the 2015–2025 period.

“The labor participation rate will continue to drop through 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This shift is largely driven by aging workers who are retiring—and there isn’t enough new talent in the pipeline to replace them,” Graham said.

The manufacturing sector — like many others– needs to invest more in attracting and training talent. Some of the difficulty could stem from what Graham called an “image problem.”

“There’s a perception that manufacturing is not a viable career path, because automation is taking over, or because it’s dangerous, or simply because many jobs on the factory floor seem repetitive,” she said. Less than five in 10 Americans surveyed by Deloitte believe manufacturing jobs are interesting, rewarding, clean, safe, stable, or secure.

The increasingly technical nature of manufacturing work may also present challenges, as potential job candidates may not have the right skills.

Manufacturers are feeling the pinch. In a recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers, companies indicated that attracting and maintaining a quality workforce is a top challenge.

Now is the time for manufacturers to address these operational challenges so they can be successful in the long term.

Bridging the Gap

When it comes to training new skills, earlier is better for both employees and businesses. Manufacturers that invest in apprenticeship programs targeting younger applicants can help to teach the necessary skills to a pool of talent early in their career journeys.

For example, Germany adopted an apprenticeship model in the mid-2000s, which helped decrease the youth unemployment rate from a high of 15.9 percent in 2005 to 6.6 percent in 2017. In the U.S., the youth unemployment rate reached 10.1 percent in 2017.

“There is a big opportunity to tap into that pool,” Graham said. “And if apprentices have good experiences, they’ll spread the word among their peers, helping to cultivate a continuing pipeline of talent.”

Talent development and training may not completely bridge the gap created by a mass exodus of retirees, and that’s where collaborative robots —or co-bots — come into play.

Co-bots: 5 Key Areas to Address

As the name suggests, co-bots work alongside human workers, not replace them entirely.

By performing tasks that pose ergonomic or other safety risks to employees, co-bots can free up employees for higher-level thinking tasks like quality control or the actual programming of co-bots.

“Co-bots boost worker efficiency and can reduce the total number of employees on the floor,” Graham said, but they don’t come without their own challenges.

Brokers can play a key role in helping their clients take advantage of the efficiency gains promised by co-bots while mitigating the risks.  Here are five areas brokers should address with their clients to help them effectively implement co-bot technology:

  1. Safety: Have you conducted a risk assessment to make sure employees know how to safely operate and work side-by-side with co-bots? Using co-bots correctly should reduce workers’ exposures to more dangerous tasks, but misuse could place employees in harm’s way.
  2. Product Liability: Are co-bots producing materials of consistent quality? If programmed incorrectly, co-bots could produce faulty work that increases product liability exposure.
  3. Contract Language: Have you consulted with legal counsel to put contracts in place among the co-bot manufacturer, programmer, and end user to assign liability appropriately should machinery fail?
  4. Contingency Planning: Is there a backup plan if the factory loses power? Are you able to quickly repair or procure co-bot machinery if needed?
  5. Insurance Coverage: Do you have appropriate coverage limits on property, equipment breakdown, business interruption, and operational replacement costs to account for changes to your operation?

The Right Risk Partner

The right insurer can help brokers address these areas and help their clients take advantage of the business opportunities ahead.

Liberty Mutual’s team of risk control consultants can help create company-specific safety checklists to help ensure that co-bots don’t present a bigger threat than opportunity.

“Members of our risk control team specialize in manufacturing. They sit on health and safety committees and take part in discussions about standards for industrial robots and co-bots,” Graham said. “They help ensure we’re keeping up with industry changes so we can provide the right guidance.”

Industry-specific expertise is complemented by broad range of coverages, from standard to E&S lines, offered by Liberty Mutual and Ironshore, now a Liberty Mutual company.

“We have such a wide breadth of products available for manufacturers, from small and mid-size to very large. Whether it’s a guaranteed cost policy or a loss responsive policy, we can build a program that makes the most sense for that company,” Graham said.

Liberty Mutual also offers specific endorsements for industrial equipment, metal, plastics, and food manufacturers, including commercial general liability enhancements and E&O coverage claims-made and defense within limits.

“Our job is to make it easy for brokers to find the right mix of coverage and services their clients need to be successful. “We’re able to do that with our risk control resources and flexibility in building program structures that work.”

To learn more, visit https://business.libertymutualgroup.com/business-insurance/industries/manufacturers-insurance-coverage.



This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.

Liberty Mutual Insurance offers a wide range of insurance products and services, including general liability, property, commercial automobile, excess casualty and workers compensation.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Focus: Cyber

Expanding Cyber BI

Cyber business interruption insurance is a thriving market, but growth carries the threat of a mega-loss. 
By: | March 5, 2018 • 7 min read

Lingering hopes that large-scale cyber attack might be a once-in-a-lifetime event were dashed last year. The four-day WannaCry ransomware strike in May across 150 countries targeted more than 300,000 computers running Microsoft Windows. A month later, NotPetya hit multinationals ranging from Danish shipping firm Maersk to pharmaceutical giant Merck.


Maersk’s chairman, Jim Hagemann Snabe, revealed at this year’s Davos summit that NotPetya shut down most of the group’s network. While it was replacing 45,000 PCs and 4,000 servers, freight transactions had to be completed manually. The combined cost of business interruption and rebuilding the system was up to $300 million.

Merck’s CFO Robert Davis told investors that its NotPetya bill included $135 million in lost sales plus $175 million in additional costs. Fellow victims FedEx and French construction group Saint Gobain reported similar financial hits from lost business and clean-up costs.

The fast-expanding world of cryptocurrencies is also increasingly targeted. Echoes of the 2014 hack that triggered the collapse of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox emerged this January when Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck pledged to repay customers $500 million stolen by hackers in a cyber heist.

The size and scope of last summer’s attacks accelerated discussions on both sides of the Atlantic, between risk managers and brokers seeking more comprehensive cyber business interruption insurance products.

It also recently persuaded Pool Re, the UK’s terrorism reinsurance pool set up 25 years ago after bomb attacks in London’s financial quarter, to announce that from April its cover will extend to include material damage and direct BI resulting from acts of terrorism using a cyber trigger.

“The threat from a cyber attack is evident, and businesses have become increasingly concerned about the extensive repercussions these types of attacks could have on them,” said Pool Re’s chief, Julian Enoizi. “This was a clear gap in our coverage which left businesses potentially exposed.”

Shifting Focus

Development of cyber BI insurance to date reveals something of a transatlantic divide, said Hans Allnutt, head of cyber and data risk at international law firm DAC Beachcroft. The first U.S. mainstream cyber insurance products were a response to California’s data security and breach notification legislation in 2003.

Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Of more recent vintage, Europe’s first cyber policies’ wordings initially reflected U.S. wordings, with the focus on data breaches. “So underwriters had to innovate and push hard on other areas of cyber cover, particularly BI and cyber crimes such as ransomware demands and distributed denial of service attacks,” said Allnut.

“Europe now has regulation coming up this May in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation across the EU, so the focus has essentially come full circle.”

Cyber insurance policies also provide a degree of cover for BI resulting from one of three main triggers, said Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter for specialist insurer Beazley. “First is the malicious-type trigger, where the system goes down or an outage results directly from a hack.

“Second is any incident involving negligence — the so-called ‘fat finger’ — where human or operational error causes a loss or there has been failure to upgrade or maintain the system. Third is any broader unplanned outage that hits either the company or anyone on which it relies, such as a service provider.”

The importance of cyber BI covering negligent acts in addition to phishing and social engineering attacks was underlined by last May’s IT meltdown suffered by airline BA.

This was triggered by a technician who switched off and then reconnected the power supply to BA’s data center, physically damaging servers and distribution panels.

Compensating delayed passengers cost the company around $80 million, although the bill fell short of the $461 million operational error loss suffered by Knight Capital in 2012, which pushed it close to bankruptcy and decimated its share price.

Mistaken Assumption

Awareness of potentially huge BI losses resulting from cyber attack was heightened by well-publicized hacks suffered by retailers such as Target and Home Depot in late 2013 and 2014, said Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability at Victor O. Schinnerer & Company.


However, the incidents didn’t initially alarm smaller, less high-profile businesses, which assumed they wouldn’t be similarly targeted.

“But perpetrators employing bots and ransomware set out to expose any firms with weaknesses in their system,” he added.

“Suddenly, smaller firms found that even when they weren’t themselves targeted, many of those around them had fallen victim to attacks. Awareness started to lift, as the focus moved from large, headline-grabbing attacks to more everyday incidents.”

Publications such as the Director’s Handbook of Cyber-Risk Oversight, issued by the National Association of Corporate Directors and the Internet Security Alliance fixed the issue firmly on boardroom agendas.

“What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.” — Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Reformed ex-hackers were recruited to offer board members their insights into the most vulnerable points across the company’s systems — in much the same way as forger-turned-security-expert Frank Abagnale Jr., subject of the Spielberg biopic “Catch Me If You Can.”

There also has been an increasing focus on systemic risk related to cyber attacks. Allnutt cites “Business Blackout,” a July 2015 study by Lloyd’s of London and the Cambridge University’s Centre for Risk Studies.

This detailed analysis of what could result from a major cyber attack on America’s power grid predicted a cost to the U.S. economy of hundreds of billions and claims to the insurance industry totalling upwards of $21.4 billion.

Lloyd’s described the scenario as both “technologically possible” and “improbable.” Three years on, however, it appears less fanciful.

In January, the head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, said the UK had been fortunate in so far averting a ‘category one’ attack. A C1 would shut down the financial services sector on which the country relies heavily and other vital infrastructure. It was a case of “when, not if” such an assault would be launched, he warned.

AI: Friend or Foe?

Despite daunting potential financial losses, pioneers of cyber BI insurance such as Beazley, Zurich, AIG and Chubb now see new competitors in the market. Capacity is growing steadily, said Allnutt.

“Not only is cyber insurance a new product, it also offers a new source of premium revenue so there is considerable appetite for taking it on,” he added. “However, whilst most insurers are comfortable with the liability aspects of cyber risk; not all insurers are covering loss of income.”

Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability, Victor O. Schinnerer & Company

Kletzli added that available products include several well-written, broad cyber coverages that take into account all types of potential cyber attack and don’t attempt to limit cover by applying a narrow definition of BI loss.

“It’s a rapidly-evolving coverage — and needs to be — in order to keep up with changing circumstances,” he said.

The good news, according to a Fitch report, is that the cyber loss ratio has been reduced to 45 percent as more companies buy cover and the market continues to expand, bringing down the size of the average loss.

“The bad news is that at cyber events, talk is regularly turning to ‘what will be the Hurricane Katrina-type event’ for the cyber market?” said Kletzli.

“What’s worse is that with hurricane losses, underwriters know which regions are most at risk, whereas cyber is a global risk and insurers potentially face huge aggregation.”


Nor is the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) necessarily cause for optimism. As Allnutt noted, while AI can potentially be used to decode malware, by the same token sophisticated criminals can employ it to develop new malware and escalate the ‘computer versus computer’ battle.

“The trend towards greater automation of business means that we can expect more incidents involving loss of income,” said Sané. “What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.

“We’re likely to see a growing number of attacks where the aim is to cause disruption, rather than demand a ransom.

“The paradox of cyber BI is that the more sophisticated your organization and the more it embraces automation, the bigger the potential impact when an outage does occur. Those old-fashioned businesses still reliant on traditional processes generally aren’t affected as much and incur smaller losses.” &

Graham Buck is editor of gtnews.com. He can be reached at riskletters.com.