IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/gpprii/v50y2025i1d10.1057_s41288-024-00341-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insurtech strategies: a comparison of incumbent insurance firms with new entrants

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher P. Holland

    (Loughborough University
    University of Manchester
    Münster University)

  • Anil S. Kavuri

    (Loughborough University)

Abstract

Insurtech is closely associated with digital transformation by new entrants that seek to disrupt insurance markets. However, the insurtech concept also includes its use by incumbent insurance companies, which are actively deploying a wide variety of insurtech applications to protect their market positions through innovation of their existing business models, e.g. through improved business processes or new insurance services. A theoretical insurtech business innovation model is developed that captures the effects of digital technology in insurance markets by considering innovation as a multi-dimensional concept that encompasses business processes, novel insurance products and changes to the insurance value chain. This framework is applied to an empirical sample of digital leaders: three incumbents and four new entrants. The results illustrate a variety of insurtech applications that include the transformation of business processes, products and new types of value chain configuration, as well as relatively minor enhancements to existing systems and business practices. It is shown that all the new entrants exploit artificial intelligence, big data and digital technology to build brand-new insurance services that emphasise innovative product features, high customer value and a delightful customer experience. In contrast, the legacy insurance firms tend to use digital technology in a defensive manner, e.g. the enhancement of existing insurance services, distribution channels and market positions. The exception is the launch of a telematics insurance service by an incumbent firm, where the telematics insurance effectively operates as a standalone business within a legacy insurance firm. The theory model is effective at analysing and evaluating both the type and magnitude of innovation. The case studies make an empirical contribution by illustrating state-of-the-art innovation by insurance disruptors and contrasts this with the defensive and sometimes novel digital strategies of incumbent firms. Future trends and research opportunities are outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher P. Holland & Anil S. Kavuri, 2025. "Insurtech strategies: a comparison of incumbent insurance firms with new entrants," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 50(1), pages 78-105, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:gpprii:v:50:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41288-024-00341-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41288-024-00341-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41288-024-00341-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41288-024-00341-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    2. Hagiu, Andrei & Wright, Julian, 2015. "Multi-sided platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 162-174.
    3. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    4. Gandomi, Amir & Haider, Murtaza, 2015. "Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 137-144.
    5. Iván Sosa Gómez & Óscar Montes Pineda, 2023. "What is an InsurTech? A scientific approach for defining the term," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 26(2), pages 125-173, July.
    6. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    7. N L Reynolds & A C Simintiras & A Diamantopoulos, 2003. "Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international marketing research: key issues and guidelines for researchers," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 34(1), pages 80-89, January.
    8. Iván Sosa & Óscar Montes, 2022. "Understanding the InsurTech dynamics in the transformation of the insurance sector," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 25(1), pages 35-68, April.
    9. Christopher P. Holland & Julia A. Jacobs & Stefan Klein, 2016. "The role and impact of comparison websites on the consumer search process in the US and German airline markets," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 127-148, March.
    10. Tiziano Volpentesta & Esli Spahiu & Pietro De Giovanni, 2023. "A survey on incumbent digital transformation: a paradoxical perspective and research agenda," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(7), pages 478-501, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaheer, Noman Ahmed & Li, Sali, 2020. "The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalize in a virtual world," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    2. Cappetta, Rossella & Cillo, Paola & Ponti, Anna, 2006. "Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1273-1290, November.
    3. Lambertini, Luca & Mantovani, Andrea, 2009. "Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopolist: A dynamic approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 508-518, July.
    4. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca & Boronat-Moll, Carles, 2012. "Process innovation objectives and management complementarities: patterns, drivers, co-adoption and performance effects," MERIT Working Papers 2012-051, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    7. Andrea Mantovani, 2006. "Complementarity between product and process innovation in a monopoly setting," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 219-234.
    8. Lalit Manral, 2015. "The demand-side dynamics of entrant heterogeneity," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 401-445, April.
    9. Luca Lambertini & Andrea Mantovani, 2010. "Process and product innovation: A differential game approach to product life cycle," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(2), pages 227-252, June.
    10. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    11. Melissa Haller & David L. Rigby, 2020. "The geographic evolution of optics technologies in the United States, 1976–2010," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(6), pages 1539-1559, December.
    12. Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga & Debora Di Caprio & Madjid Tavana & Aidan O'Connor, 2017. "Formalising The Demand For Technological Innovations: Rational Herds, Market Frictions And Network Effects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(02), pages 1-43, February.
    13. Sears, Joshua B., 2019. "A real options model of market entry: Endogenous uncertainty and exogenous uncertainty," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 1-1.
    14. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    15. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello & Palestini, Arsen, 2017. "On the instability of the R&D portfolio in a dynamic monopoly. Or, one cannot get two eggs in one basket," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 703-712.
    16. Fernandes, Kiran Jude & Milewski, Simon & Chaudhuri, Atanu & Xiong, Yu, 2022. "Contextualising the role of external partnerships to innovate the core and enabling processes of an organisation: A resource and knowledge-based view," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 146-162.
    17. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal & Sonali K. Shah, 2020. "Building Industries by Building Knowledge: Uncertainty Reduction over Industry Milestones," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 218-244, September.
    18. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2017. "Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Tymoteusz Doligalski, 2025. "Common typology of multi-sided platforms and virtual communities: analysis of business models using qualitative system dynamics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 951-985, April.
    20. Li, Xu, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:gpprii:v:50:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41288-024-00341-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.