By Gabe McCabe
Healey’s self-described “flotilla of small measures” offered little to capture headlines. For many watching, Nusrat Ghani’s snappy put-downs were probably the most memorable moments of the Burnham–Healey Budget.
Whether by design or necessity, the Budget dropped the moral rhetoric that usually comes with green policy. Instead, it opted for rhetoric that prioritised logic over ideology.
Healey said the government remains “unshakably committed to net-zero by 2050”. The long-term goal remains intact, and the smaller policies within the budget reflect this. However, the language around the policies differed from what we have previously seen. The usual moralising was missing, and the Budget put “first and foremost cheaper energy” at the centre.
New clean power will be procured only where it lowers bills and can connect to the grid, and the hydrogen levy moves off gas bills into general taxation. Fixed-price contracts for eligible renewable generators go out to consultation. Each measure was sold on what it does to a household bill.
That is a real change of tactics when it comes to “green agenda” comms. The Conservatives and Reform argue net zero should be dropped to bring prices down, and the argument has captured buy-in from huge percentages of the UK population because sustainability is framed as a cost, in cash or in freedoms, imposed on ordinary people. Healey’s recent budget has reclaimed that ground. Green measures are a pragmatic way to cut bills.
This fits a view we at Blurred have held for some time: sustainability has entered its third phase. After the CSR and ESG eras, Sustainability 3.0 is a pragmatic reset that keeps ESG’s rigour while ditching the ideology. Its core principle is to anchor communications in outcomes no serious stakeholder, inside or outside the business, can reject. Energy security and the cost of living fit the criteria. A moral appeal to a 2050 target, in this climate, can’t land when people are being squeezed financially.
A company that says it will “spend £100m on wind turbines to help us meet our net-zero 2050 target” should expect a cynical headline. If it invests the same £100m “because it’s important we protect British people from energy price rises”, association with the toxic “woke” comparisons largely disappears. The act and the money are identical in both versions, but Wednesday offered evidence to support the latter.
Pragmatism, though, has a price.
When logic leads, progress is uneven. The same Chancellor called the Jackdaw gas field “pragmatic” on energy security grounds. The Warm Homes Plan lost £1bn to help fund defence, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme is about £800m lighter, and zero VAT on solar ends after March 2027. Commitments tied to bills and security continued, but ones resting on long-term abstract virtue were cut. The framing that protected clean power also justified a gasfield.
Sustainability 3.0 accepts that trade: slower, messier progress that lasts, over bold targets that are the first to go when money runs short.
Money is scarce, leaving little room for manoeuvre, leaving Healey in a position chess players may liken to zugzwang: a position where every move worsens the position, yet a move is unavoidable. Healey framed the choice as one of minimising the damage.
Most businesses have far more room than Healey. They don’t answer to the gilt market or have to write a Budget, yet plenty still talk about sustainability in the language Healey has just dropped: pledges, targets and talk of a better world. The brief for the boardroom is similar to the tactic taken by Healey. Find a problem your customers or staff already have, whether that’s cost, jobs or security, and describe the work in those terms. Put a number on it and name who benefits. Then report against it every year so anyone can check.
If a Chancellor in zugzwang managed business with a free hand, they would have fewer excuses.
Photo by Sebastian Fränkle on Unsplash