Lessons from the Red&Blue Lab at ING
29 May 2026, Amsterdam
A warm welcome and a shared purpose
In stark contrast to our previous visit to ING, we arrived this time in tropical temperatures rather than snowy conditions. Yet it was not only the weather that made the previous lab memorable: the powerful discussions and renewed insights made it a valuable contribution to our Red & Blue journey.
Both the previous time and at this lab, the enthusiasm of our researchers and the active participation of many interested ING colleagues demonstrated how far we have come as a collaborative consortium.
The morning began with an introduction to Red&Blue by Ellen van Bueren. As many of the ING participants were unfamiliar with the programme, Ellen first outlined NWO’s role and the objectives of the Red&Blue research consortium. Throughout the morning, these objectives resurfaced in several discussions: balancing qualitative and quantitative methods, and jointly assessing the interconnectedness of risks and responses through dialogue and practical use cases. The structure of the lab itself provided a strong example of this approach in practice.
ING’s perspective on physical climate risks
Next, Verena Beller, Expert Lead Integrated Risk Strategy and ESG Risk at ING NL, provided background on the relevance of physical climate risks for ING, covering regulatory expectations, internal risk management considerations, and the bank’s duty of care towards its customers. For the real estate portfolios specifically, her team focuses on the assessment and management of three material physical climate risks: flooding, wildfires, and foundation problems.
Verena also highlighted recent developments within the Netherlands and ING that create additional opportunities for homeowners to finance foundation repairs through mortgages, dedicated loans or public funds. Looking ahead, similar financing solutions could potentially be extended to support a broader range of climate-related mitigation and adaptation measures.
Her presentation demonstrated ING’s broad interpretation of its duty of care, encompassing both customers’ awareness of physical climate risks and support in understanding potential financial implications. At the same time, several speakers confirmed that current climate risk assessment tools are not mature enough to deliver reliable, data-driven insights at the property level. This introduces a risk that inaccurate or incomplete information could lead to unintended adverse effects for homeowners and distort property valuations at the neighbourhood level.
Research insights: governance and flood risk
This provided a natural transition to the presentations by the Red&Blue researchers. Lilian van Karnenbeek opened by discussing the Multi-Layer Safety Strategy, focusing on spatial planning, the second layer of the Dutch approach.
Her presentation sparked a discussion in which one ING participant pointed out that while safety regulations within spatial planning largely fall under municipal responsibility, many of these measures remain non-binding. Furthermore, when damages result from both water-related and safety-related issues, responsibilities can become unclear. Is the water authority responsible because the damage is water-related, or does responsibility lie with national government bodies because public safety is involved?
Moreover, there is no universal definition of a ‘flood-prone area’ in the Netherlands, giving project developers leverage to push through developments that may require additional adaptation from a climate risk perspective.
Building on these governance challenges, Cees Oerlemans presented findings showing that approximately 20% of Dutch houses exposed to flood risk account for 90% of expected annual damage. In other words, flood-related adaptation measures need to be carefully targeted, with the right mix of public policies and financial supports to spark action.
He also demonstrated substantial uncertainty within current modelling approaches, with differences of up to a factor of five in hazard assessments and a factor of two in vulnerability and damage assessments. These uncertainties have practical implications. As one ING participant observed, such information offers limited value to mortgage clients when existing risk assessment models cannot adequately combine risk and damage assessments from multiple flooding sources. In reality, Cees agreed, if a primary water defence fails, it is likely due to an exceptionally strong storm, bringing in both heavy rainfall and river water as well.
Institutional challenges and neighbourhood-level action
How do these uncertainties translate into institutional decision-making? Although Abdi Mehvar was unable to attend the lab, Pelin Gülüm presented his research on institutional responses to climate risk in real estate management. Abdi’s work highlighted many of the tensions experienced by ING colleagues and acknowledged the challenges organisations face when balancing internal discussions, client engagement, regulatory requirements, and public policy commitments. Themes such as compliance and liability increasingly play a central role in these conversations.
These tensions became even more apparent during the interview between PhD researcher Mats Lucia Bayer and Marjolein de Jong-Knol, ESG Regulatory Lead for the mortgage division of ING. Through their joint participation in a learning community led by the Municipality of Rotterdam, they explore the practical rolesfinancial institutions can take in tackling climate risks in the housing sector. This community focuses on the neighbourhood of Bloemhof, where land subsidence and other climate-related risks intersect with broader socio-economic challenges and call for urgent collective action.
Their research points to two key challenges. First, there is not always a viable business case for adapting many existing homes to climate risks. Second, homeowners often lack the financial resources needed to undertake large-scale adaptation or redevelopment measures. Bloemhof serves as just one example of a Dutch neighbourhood where climate, financial, and social challenges converge.
A central conclusion from their work is that these issues cannot be addressed in isolation. Climate risks, financial constraints, and social vulnerabilities are deeply interconnected and should therefore be approached as components of a single, complex system.
Reflections and looking ahead
During the final reflection session, ING colleagues contributed several additional insights. Two themes stood out in particular: the importance of placing at-risk homeowners at the centre of climate adaptation strategies,and the need for stronger central coordination of climate adaptation efforts[1].
The Red&Blue research team appreciated the meaningful and reflective leadership demonstrated by our hosts at ING. The meeting reinforced the value of collaborative research and two-way knowledge sharing between science and societal stakeholders. This is at the core of the Red&Blue program: exchanging perspectives generates insights that would not be generated by academia alone. At the same time, science can help to tackle knowledge gaps and surface reflective dialogue, advancing the types of practical experimentation and leadership shared by ING.
Thanks to Pam van de Klundert, Meike Proost and other members of the ING team for the invitation.
[1] The Ontwerp-Nationale Klimaatadaptatiestrategie 2026 is particularly relevant to this discussion, especially Table 3.4.1 on financing climate adaptation measures.
