Month: March 2025

Oh, Donald. We really shouldn’t still be talking about you, but like a bad haircut, you just won’t go away. There you were again, hours after your inauguration in a suit that fits like a wind-blown tent, yelling “Drill, baby, drill!” to a crowd who, let’s be honest, would cheer just as loudly if you told them to eat gravel.
You’ve made it clear that you’re all for scrapping green policies, pushing fossil fuels like they’re the future (spoiler: they’re not) and undoing any progress the world has made towards carbon neutrality. And worryingly, some businesses—terrified by short-term costs and political uncertainty—are jumping on board. Back pedalling on their sustainability commitments faster than you back pedalled on that promise to release your tax returns.
Across the Capital Business Media Group, we have no plans to cave to this sudden rush of climate cowardice. We are carbon neutral, and we are staying that way. Because let’s be real—if your business is serious about the future, rolling back sustainability efforts isn’t just bad for the planet, it’s bad for business.
Let’s talk about the backsliders. Big oil, of course, has never seen a roll-back it didn’t like, but we’re seeing banks, airlines, and manufacturers quietly retreat from their bold Net Zero promises. They’ve realised that going green is hard work and—shock horror—requires actual commitment. So now, under the convenient cover of economic turbulence and political uncertainty, they’re taking the easy way out.
BP has scaled back its emissions reduction targets. Car manufacturers who once trumpeted their EV rollouts are suddenly hedging their bets and sticking with combustion engines a little longer. Airlines—who only last year were falling over themselves to showcase their ‘sustainable’ fuels—are now whispering about ‘balancing economic realities’.
And why? Because one orange-tinted property mogul-turned-politician has made a comeback, and they think he’s giving them permission to renege on their promises.
It’s spineless. It’s short-sighted. It’s exactly what we won’t be doing.
Carbon neutrality isn’t a fad—it’s the future
You’d have to be wilfully blind to ignore the fact that customers, investors, and employees care about sustainability. Consumers are making choices based on sustainability credentials, investors are favouring ESG-compliant businesses, and employees—especially the younger generation—want to work for companies that align with their values.
And yet, some businesses are acting as if sustainability is a passing trend, like Crocs or low-carb diets. It isn’t.
At Capital Business Media, we made the decision to go carbon neutral over five years ago, not for PR points, but because it’s the right thing to do. And staying carbon neutral is just common sense. Not only does it help future-proof our business, but it also puts us on the right side of history.
Because—and this bit is crucial—climate change isn’t a ‘debate’. It’s not up for discussion like the best way to make a cup of tea (it’s milk last, by the way, and if you disagree, you’re wrong). The science is settled. The planet is warming, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and businesses have a role to play in mitigating the damage.
For those companies now treating their sustainability commitments like a New Year’s gym membership—something they said they’d do but have now abandoned—it’s going to cost them. And not just in PR nightmares when they get called out.
Regulations are tightening. Governments around the world are pushing for stricter emissions controls, and businesses that fail to adapt will find themselves at a disadvantage. Carbon taxes, fines, loss of subsidies—these are all very real financial threats to those who think they can just sweep their green promises under the rug.
Then there’s the consumer backlash. People aren’t stupid. If a company suddenly ditches its sustainability efforts, customers will notice. And they’ll go elsewhere. The brands that double down on their climate commitments will win loyalty, while those that backtrack will be called out, shamed, and—most damningly—ignored.
Trump can chant “Drill, baby, drill” all he likes. He can hold up a chunk of coal and call it beautiful, he can claim that wind turbines cause cancer, or kill whales (yes, he actually said both of those things), and he can try to drag the world backwards into an oil-soaked past.
But businesses that have a shred of foresight, an ounce of integrity, or even just a desire to remain relevant in the coming decades will see through it. Sustainability is not a ‘woke agenda’—it’s good business. And it’s here to stay.
At Capital Business Media, we are carbon neutral and proud. We aren’t changing course because it’s inconvenient, we aren’t letting short-term political shifts dictate long-term responsibility, and we certainly aren’t taking cues from a man who thinks climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
For those rolling back their sustainability efforts, here’s a bit of advice: wake up. The world is changing, the future is green, and those who fail to adapt will be left behind.
Sorry, Donald. But we’re not budging. And the businesses that want to thrive in the 21st century shouldn’t either.
This strikes the right tone—sharp, witty, a little provocative, but with a solid business case behind it. Let me know if you’d like any refinements!
Read more:
Sorry Donald, but we are carbon neutral and proud of the fact

A second term for Donald Trump promises to revive “Trumponomics” – policies defined by protectionism, deregulation, and strong-arm geopolitical tactics.
Douglas Grant, managing director at Manx Financial Group looks at why for UK SMEs, navigating a post-Brexit economic landscape could become more complex. At the same time, new openings for growth may emerge, particularly around overseas trade and supply chains. Below, we explore five key areas likely to shape both the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Trade barriers and tariffs vs. strengthened UK-US trading relations
Trump’s emphasis on “America First” is likely to involve increased tariffs and robust domestic priorities. These measures could raise costs and regulatory hurdles for UK SMEs selling into the US market, dampening competitiveness and raising uncertainty around existing trade agreements.
However, any surge in US protectionist policies might also encourage the UK to align with other similarly affected nations, potentially leading to alternative trade partnerships outside the US and China. To capitalise on such shifts, SMEs should keep a close watch on trade negotiations, prepare to adapt their export strategies, and track fluctuations in currency and regulations.
Regulatory changes and market volatility vs. favourable tax policies
Trump’s track record of deregulation could make it more challenging for UK businesses to stand out in an increasingly competitive US domestic market. Meanwhile, his unpredictable approach to policymaking may trigger market volatility, affecting exchange rates and investor confidence. UK firms will need to stay agile, planning for the potential impact of abrupt changes.
On the plus side, the US administration’s push to cut corporate taxes and reduce regulations could lower operating costs for British companies with American footprints. SMEs would do well to remain updated on possible tax reforms and adjust financial strategies – for instance, rethinking capital allocation or pricing models – to benefit from any shifts in US fiscal policy.
Currency fluctuations and cost implications vs. M&A opportunities
If a second Trump administration drives the dollar higher, importing goods from the US becomes more expensive for UK companies, potentially undermining profitability. Although a stronger dollar might boost the competitiveness of UK exports, any benefit could be neutralised by new or increased tariffs. To mitigate the risk, SMEs should consider hedging strategies or negotiate contracts in more stable currencies.
Conversely, a realignment of global trading blocs in response to US protectionism could stabilise currency movements within smaller networks. In these scenarios, some SMEs may find appealing opportunities for mergers and acquisitions. By keeping close tabs on emerging trade corridors and any related currency predictability, firms could spot lucrative deals or strengthen their presence in high-potential markets.
Geopolitical uncertainty vs. supply chain opportunities
A return to Trump’s assertive foreign policy may heighten tensions with China and the EU, resulting in complications for firms reliant on multinational supply chains. Potential shifts in NATO dynamics or global alliances further increase the complexity for businesses operating in multiple regions.
Yet, US-China friction might incentivise American firms to diversify their supply chains, opening the door for UK suppliers offering competitive pricing, reliability, or unique products. SMEs should explore building more nimble supply networks and investing in improved logistics infrastructure to step in where established trade links falter. Positioning as a trustworthy, cost-effective supplier could pay dividends in uncertain times.
Tighter us immigration policies vs. increased UK services demand
A tougher stance on immigration could curb UK companies’ ability to recruit and relocate talent to the US. To offset this, SMEs might consider remote working models, partner with local agencies, or shift expansion plans to alternative regions.
On the other hand, if Trump’s economic agenda spurs growth in the US, demand for professional services – including financial, legal, and tech solutions – is likely to rise, presenting fresh opportunities. UK businesses skilled in these areas could capitalise on an uptick in cross-border consulting, outsourcing, and digital service exports.
Looking ahead
Trumponomics, if resurrected, may bring complex challenges for UK SMEs, yet it also highlights clear possibilities for those prepared to adapt and innovate. Strengthening ties with other trading partners outside the US and China, monitoring currency shifts, and assessing supply-chain vulnerabilities can all help firms stay resilient. By planning proactively, embracing digital transformation, and remaining agile in the face of policy changes, UK SMEs stand a chance not only to weather potential storms but to flourish on the global stage.
Read more:
The five challenges and opportunities for UK SMEs under a second Trump presidency

A new analysis of HMRC data has found that UK SMEs are failing to claim up to £47 billion in Research and Development (R&D) tax relief.
While 36% of small and medium-sized enterprises across the country engage in innovative activities, fewer than 6% of them actually submit R&D tax claims. This leaves potentially 38,000 businesses each missing an average saving of £70,000.
The research, conducted by small business accountants Wellers, also highlights considerable regional variations. Buckinghamshire stands out as the area with the highest potential tax savings—companies there typically save £138,000 on average. Yet more than 18,000 eligible businesses in the county may be missing out by not making a claim.
Berkshire ranks second in terms of potential savings, yet fewer than 5% of its businesses involved in innovation take advantage of R&D relief. Oxfordshire, a renowned innovation hub, similarly sees low claim rates: just 893 (6%) of its innovative businesses file a claim.
Greater Manchester tops the country for unclaimed R&D tax relief, with the study indicating that despite saving a collective £225 million, regional SMEs are still forgoing a further £2.7 billion. Tom Biggs, Partner at Wellers, comments: “Our analysis shows a clear opportunity for UK SMEs to reduce their tax liabilities. These reliefs are crucial for supporting scaling businesses and driving innovation, especially when the Autumn Budget has brought fresh challenges.”
With so many SMEs overlooking R&D tax claims, experts say more support and awareness are needed to spur innovation and underpin growth. “We believe that with the right help, small businesses across the UK can continue to thrive,” Biggs adds.
Read more:
UK SMEs risk losing out on £47bn in R&D tax relief

Asda has confirmed that more than 10,000 of its managers will not receive their annual bonuses this year, following a worrying slide in performance at the once-thriving supermarket chain.
The payout cancellation comes amid Asda’s worst Christmas sales in a decade and a slip in market share from 13.7 per cent to 12.6 per cent, heaping pressure on the leadership team to reverse the retailer’s fortunes.
The bonus scheme’s suspension, revealed shortly before Asda is due to publish last year’s financial results, is expected to dampen morale among staff. One former senior employee warned that the setback would prove devastating, saying: “Morale will be rock bottom. Even Allan [Leighton] won’t be able to pick them up from this. This will mean some of the top talent looking elsewhere.” A recruiter added that the bonus cuts risk causing “anarchy” within the organisation.
Allan Leighton, who returned as executive chairman late last year after more than two decades away, is credited with transforming Asda into a retail powerhouse in the 1990s. He has pledged to restore what he calls the “Asda DNA”. However, recent figures reflect the scale of the challenge ahead: industry data from Kantar reveals a 5.2 per cent fall in sales in the 12 weeks to 28 January.
Leighton has already taken steps to reduce overheads, including a restructuring of senior teams that led to the departure of 13 regional managers in February. It follows the decision late last year to make hundreds of head office staff redundant, prompting condemnation from the GMB union over the way job cuts were handled.
Critics argue that the removal of bonuses, while saving costs for a price-focused turnaround strategy, will do little to inspire confidence among employees at a time when only half of them say they believe in Asda’s corporate direction. The supermarket is still hunting for a permanent chief executive after Roger Burnley’s abrupt exit in August 2021. Lord Rose’s attempt to fill the top job stalled, leaving Leighton to relaunch the search in January.
Asda has been under intense scrutiny since its 2021 takeover by the Issa brothers and TDR Capital. Once the jewel in Britain’s supermarket crown, it has suffered repeated setbacks, prompting Lord Rose—who stepped down as chairman last November—to label its performance “embarrassing”. Leighton has cautioned that the turnaround could take as long as five years, a prediction that industry analysts say is realistic given the company’s current condition and impending cost pressures like the Extended Producer Responsibility recycling levy, National Insurance changes and the National Living Wage.
In addition to cutting bonuses and restructuring teams, Asda may embark on further acquisitions. Leighton has hinted he is open to deals that “create further shareholder value” by offering scale or new capabilities. However, any new investments will likely face fierce scrutiny, given the risks associated with integrating additional businesses and the supermarket’s immediate priority of stabilising performance.
An Asda spokeswoman declined to comment on the bonus cancellations. The move, though, underscores the challenging balance between cost management and maintaining staff motivation as the supermarket fights to regain ground in an increasingly competitive market.
Read more:
Asda faces staff backlash after scrapping 10,000 manager bonuses

It’s not exactly the end of civilisation, but I do love a bit of outrage when it comes to modern dining habits. These days, if you even suggest that a restaurant might have to protect itself from wanton no-shows, expect a torrent of indignation.
Yet here we are, with more and more establishments fed up enough to charge a £50 penalty for late cancellations or for those wretched souls who can’t be bothered to call and say, “Actually, I won’t be stuffing my face with your pigeon breast on a bed of wilted spinach tonight.”
You can’t blame the restaurants, really. It’s not just about empty tables; it’s about wasted food, wasted wages, and the quiet despair of managers who see their perfectly orchestrated evenings go awry because of last-minute flakiness.
The principle is simple: If you think about it, you wouldn’t hire a personal trainer for an hour, then casually “forget” to turn up without consequences. You wouldn’t book a hotel room, fail to check in, and then be taken aback by a charge. And yet, for some reason, people seem to believe the hospitality industry should simply roll with every wave of whimsical indecision that washes over its clientele. “We don’t want to commit,” people cry, “we’re far too busy having spontaneous, fleeting, oh-so-Instagrammable experiences.” Indeed. But that flighty disregard creates tangible damage for restaurants which, for all the glossy PR, still survive on tight margins, precariously balanced overheads, and the faint hope that the right number of paying customers walk in each night.
Truth be told, charging diners a deposit or a cancellation fee is long overdue. It’s not just the fancy Michelin-starred places that are adopting this approach either. Even modest local bistros, which used to rely on goodwill and the trust that if you booked you’d actually show up, are now looking at ways to ensure they aren’t left holding the baby—an empty table and a staff member twiddling their thumbs. Some punters whine that it’s “greedy” to take a deposit, but really it’s not. It’s business. And it’s a business that has been battered by lockdowns, rising energy costs, staff shortages, and, now, a wave of diners who might suddenly decide they fancy the pub instead—or, heaven forbid, an evening of Netflix on the sofa with a takeaway.
Here is the rub: Restaurants simply cannot bank on goodwill alone. And so, a £50 penalty if you fail to turn up or cancel in decent time might be the difference between a chef keeping a junior sous chef employed or letting them go. A table of four, that’s £200. Multiply that by a handful of no-shows on a Friday night and you can see how quickly revenues evaporate. So, if you’re in the habit of last-minute cancellations, be warned: your dithering might soon come with a hefty price tag.
Of course, there’s a new dietary challenge lurking on the scene too, one that’s prompted restaurants to worry about something else entirely: Ozempic. While the more superficial among us might just see it as the shiny new weight-loss drug beloved of Hollywood stars and fashionable city dwellers alike, restaurateurs are starting to experience the impact, a 30% loss in revenue. For the uninitiated, Ozempic is an injectable medication that helps curb appetite. The logic is straightforward enough: If you eat less, you weigh less. But if you eat less, restaurants have fewer starters, mains, and puddings to shift. A few svelte customers might sound like a dream to some, but the truth is if your clientele is picking at half a fillet of cod and forgoing dessert, your margins start to shrivel like a neglected soufflé.
Yes, I hear the cynics among you. “You can’t blame a drug for that,” you might say. But restaurateurs, already operating in a culture of ephemeral bookings, fickle diners, and last-minute cancellations, are also grappling with the reality that even when diners deign to arrive, they might only indulge in a single course and tap out before the cheese trolley rolls around. It’s a small shift in habits, but in an industry that relies on extras—wine pairings, side dishes, desserts—those little adjustments to the bill can add up.
So, in the spirit of trying to keep afloat, restaurants are concentrating on the battles they can fight. If they can’t guarantee the size of your appetite, at least they can be sure you’ll show up—or fine you if you don’t. This seems fair, to be honest, because in no other realm of business does one have to bend so dramatically to the whim of the consumer. If you want that prime table at eight o’clock on Saturday night in the city’s hottest spot, you’re perfectly entitled to it. You can absolutely enjoy the crisp linens, the theatrical cocktail-making, and the gastronomic artistry on your plate. But you must, must, must have the courtesy to keep your reservation or cancel in good time. If it all goes pear-shaped in your schedule, at least let the restaurant open that seat to someone else. That’s called basic manners—though it seems they’re in vanishingly short supply these days.
Naturally, there’ll be those who cry that the restaurant industry is ‘overreacting.’ But if you’ve got a brigade of chefs on staff, fresh produce that won’t sell itself, and a legion of overheads, relying on mere faith in human decency doesn’t quite cut it. So, a £50 penalty for a no-show? A deposit taken in advance? That’s the least you can do to safeguard your livelihood against the most capricious among us.
The bottom line is this: If you consider yourself a civilised person, and you call yourself a “foodie” (dreadful term, but that’s another rant), then you should be perfectly willing to pick up the phone, or drop a quick text if you find yourself unable to dine. Or, better yet, show up as planned, hungry or not, drug-induced appetite be damned, and support the artistry of these eateries that try so hard to delight you.
In a world threatened by flakiness and a new era of medically induced nibbling, let’s do the decent thing: honour our promises, show a little respect, and if all else fails, be prepared to pay the bill for the inconvenience. Because at the end of the day, that courtesy—like the perfect soufflé—is worth protecting.
Read more:
No-Shows, Ozempic, and the £50 Fee: Restaurants Have Had Enough

The government has relinquished its position as NatWest’s biggest shareholder for the first time in more than 15 years, with its stake slipping to 5.93 per cent.
This marks a significant moment in the state’s retreat from the £45.5 billion bailout of the bank—then known as Royal Bank of Scotland—during the 2008 financial crisis, when the taxpayer’s holding stood at almost 85 per cent.
BlackRock, the American investment behemoth, has emerged as NatWest’s top shareholder with a 6.4 per cent interest. The Treasury has been steadily trimming its stake via a “drip” trading programme, which sells shares at a level deemed “fair value” for taxpayers. NatWest itself has also participated by buying back shares directly.
Paul Thwaite, the bank’s chief executive, predicts NatWest will be fully privatised by the end of 2025. The lender recently reported a slight rise in pre-tax profits to £6.2 billion, boosted by fewer bad loan charges than expected. Thwaite’s strategy includes further cost-cutting, following a 3 per cent headcount reduction to 59,200 in 2024, and he remains open to further acquisitions—although he insists deals must deliver clear shareholder value.
NatWest was once propped up at a time when the bold expansion tactics of former chief executive Fred Goodwin contributed to the bank’s near collapse, most notably through the ill-fated takeover of Dutch rival ABN Amro. The demise of RBS forced the government into a multi-billion-pound rescue, leaving taxpayers with a substantial stake. Now, with shares trading around 478¾p, the state is finally nearing a full exit.
A NatWest spokeswoman commented: “Returning the bank to full private ownership is an ambition we share with the government and one that is in the interest of all our stakeholders.”
Read more:
Taxpayers lose largest-shareholder status in Natwest as Blackrock overtakes government stake

Instagram is reportedly considering spinning off its short-form video feature, Reels, into a standalone application.
The move, revealed by Instagram chief Adam Mosseri in a meeting with staff this week according to tech publication The Information, could intensify competition with TikTok, whose future in the United States remains precarious.
TikTok, owned by Chinese firm ByteDance, was granted a 75-day extension in January under a law signed by then-President Joe Biden, requiring a sale or ban of the platform. Former President Donald Trump had previously floated the idea of a 50-50 partnership between ByteDance and an American entity, although details on how that might function were never clarified. Critics of any ban have warned that it could undermine freedom of speech, especially given TikTok’s popularity with its 170 million US users.
Meta, Instagram’s parent company, did not respond to a request for comment on the potential Reels spin-off. The development recalls Meta’s ill-fated 2018 launch of standalone app Lasso, which was eventually shut down.
Analysts suggest that a dedicated Reels app could give Instagram stronger leverage in the fiercely competitive short-form video market, especially if TikTok’s US operations face further restrictions or an outright ban.
Read more:
Instagram weighs standalone reels app amid TikTok uncertainty in the US

Microsoft’s popular online chat and phone service Skype will officially close its doors in May 2025, according to a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter).
Users are advised to migrate their accounts to Microsoft Teams Free “over the coming days” to maintain their existing chats, contacts, and calls.
“Starting in May 2025, Skype will no longer be available,” the company said, thanking customers for “being part of Skype.” While Microsoft has not yet provided an official comment to the media, the move is being interpreted as part of the tech giant’s strategy to consolidate its communication platforms.
Skype, once synonymous with internet-based calling, has undergone multiple updates since Microsoft acquired it in 2011. The latest announcement signals the end of an era for millions of users who relied on the service for voice and video calls, messaging, and conference features. Its user base is now encouraged to embrace Microsoft Teams Free, which promises to offer similar capabilities and a seamless transition.
Read more:
Skype to shut down in May 2025, directing users to teams free

President Donald Trump has given fresh hope for a rapid trade agreement with Britain, declaring that threatened tariffs “wouldn’t be necessary” if negotiations progress as he anticipates.
The remarks came at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who visited the White House seeking closer economic ties, clarity over US sanctions policies and support for a potential Ukraine settlement.
During their Oval Office meeting, Sir Keir presented Trump with a letter from King Charles inviting the US president for an unprecedented second state visit—an offer Trump deemed a “great honour.” The president also praised the King as a “wonderful man,” highlighting the importance of sustaining strong UK-US relations, both diplomatically and economically.
At the subsequent press event, Trump insisted a “real trade deal” could be finalised “very quickly,” potentially protecting British exporters from import taxes that have impacted other US allies, including hefty tariffs on steel and aluminium. Sir Keir echoed that sentiment, arguing that UK-US trade is already “fair, balanced and reciprocal.”
Beyond a potential free trade deal, both leaders addressed pressing geopolitical questions. Trump confirmed he will host Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington, despite having previously labelled Zelensky a “dictator”—an accusation Trump now claims not to recall making. Sir Keir, meanwhile, reiterated his willingness to deploy British troops to Ukraine in any internationally backed peace arrangement, but only if accompanied by “robust” US security guarantees.
The pair also discussed a planned UK agreement with Mauritius over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands—a move Trump indicated he was “inclined to go along with.” Crucially, the accord would preserve access to the strategic US-UK military base on Diego Garcia by leasing the island back to Britain after ceding sovereignty of the wider archipelago.
Finally, Sir Keir highlighted a separate “economic deal” centred on artificial intelligence, stressing that AI investment could be “the moon shot of our age” by potentially accelerating breakthroughs in areas such as cancer treatment.
Although previous attempts at securing a comprehensive US-UK free trade agreement have stalled, businesses and trade experts welcome signs of rapprochement. William Bain, the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, described the White House talks as an “important first step” towards lowering tariffs, particularly for key sectors like automotive and pharmaceuticals.
Read more:
Trump signals readiness for swift UK-US trade deal during Prime Minister’s Washington visit