For more than a decade, energy communications have been shaped by one dominant frame: climate urgency. Since the Paris Agreement, brand storytelling has leaned heavily on moral responsibility and planetary risk, positioning net zero as a defining societal mission. Now, that narrative is being absorbed into a broader set of public and political priorities: affordability, energy security, resilience, industrial competitiveness and national infrastructure.
This does not mean the energy transition is over. It means the way both B2C and B2B audiences think and talk about energy is changing. For energy brands, the critical question isn’t so much whether renewables still matter, but rather what different audiences now expect to hear and how that is reshaping communications strategies.
Public attitudes to renewables: support is strong but more pragmatic
The important shift is not necessarily directional. Most evidence suggests renewables remain broadly supported, but the language around them is becoming more pragmatic. In the UK, according to the UK government’s public attitudes tracker from winter 2025, overall support for renewable energy was still around 80%, even though strong support has softened slightly since 2021. That tells us that most people still back clean energy in principle, but the enthusiasm is being tempered by other concerns.
One of those concerns is security of supply. The public attitudes tracker from summer 2025 reveals that concern about sufficient UK fossil fuel supplies rose from 69% to 73% between Summer 2024 and Summer 2025, and only 11% agreed the UK should reduce domestic oil and gas production even if that meant buying more from other countries. That suggests the public has not abandoned clean energy, but they are now scrutinising how the transition is delivered, what it means for bills, and how resilient the system will be in a more volatile world.
Energy security and affordability: how priorities are shifting
Energy has become a kitchen‑table issue because of its proximity to everyday life, in contrast to climate concerns, which feel further away from the average person’s day-to-day life. Spikes in wholesale petrol and diesel prices, geopolitical tensions and rising living costs have made energy bills and supply disruptions highly visible, emotionally charged topics.
Research on attitudes to green infrastructure by The National Centre for Social Research highlights this “both/and” mindset. Britons tend to support renewable infrastructure in principle, but they are also highly attuned to questions of fairness, local impact and cost. People want clean energy projects to be delivered in ways that feel fair, affordable and minimally disruptive to their communities.
The Britain Talks Climate & Nature report from Climate Outreach and More in Common paints a similar picture: Britons are generally proud of the country’s clean energy progress and want strong leadership on climate, but respond better to messages that connect climate action directly to economic stability, local benefits and security than to rhetoric about sacrifice alone.
For energy brands, it suggests that communications which foreground affordability, protection from price shocks, system reliability and national resilience are more likely to resonate than abstract appeals to climate virtue, especially in an environment where many households and businesses are still feeling economic pressure
Government messaging vs public expectations: is there a gap?
Government messaging in the UK continues to place net zero at the centre of long‑term strategy, but it increasingly shares space with narratives about energy security, industrial strategy and cost of living. Policy documents and progress reports from bodies such as the Climate Change Committee underline that decarbonisation remains a statutory goal, even as short‑term measures sometimes appear to contradict that message and prioritise affordability or domestic production.
Public attitudes data suggests that voters are comfortable with this mixed emphasis. They expect governments to balance emissions reduction with economic stability and security, and can become sceptical if they feel they are being asked to shoulder disproportionate costs.
This narrows the communications window for energy brands that operate in regulated markets or depend heavily on policy support. If a brand’s messaging feels more idealistic than the government’s, it risks being seen as out of touch. If it feels more hard‑nosed than the government’s, it risks appearing opportunistic. The sweet spot is acknowledging complexity and trade‑offs while clearly explaining how a project or strategy contributes to both climate progress and real‑world resilience.
Investor expectations in the energy transition
On the B2B side, investor expectations have also evolved rather than evaporated. Institutional investors still see the energy transition as both a risk and an opportunity, but they are increasingly focused on credible, performance‑based narratives instead of broad ESG rhetoric.
A report from IFM investors shows that many institutional investors still regard sustainability as central to their strategy, infact 70% consider it integral to private market strategy and 72% prioritising climate and transition risks.
Morgan Stanley’s sustainable investing report for 2025 found that more than 80% of investors see the energy transition as an opportunity to generate returns, while nearly 70% say sustainability practices influence investment decisions. So while criteria may be more exacting and more commercially grounded, there is little evidence that investor expectations have collapsed.
At the same time, sustainability funds and strategies are under more scrutiny. Asset managers are tightening methodologies and pushing for clearer transition plans instead of broad “green” positioning. Sustainable investment funds are strengthening their criteria to include tougher questions about execution, resilience, and how companies will navigate a disorderly transition.
For energy companies communicating with investors, the implication is clear. High‑level net‑zero commitments are now a minimum expectation, but the differentiators are increasingly the ability to connect those commitments to capital discipline, grid and asset resilience, long‑term contract structures, and exposure to growth themes.
Are we in a post‑renewables era or a pragmatism era?
I think it would be unfair to say we’ve entered a “post‑renewables” era but what has undoubtedly changed is the framing. Public and B2B audiences are simultaneously more pragmatic and more demanding.
A useful way to think about this is that climate ambition has been absorbed into a wider competitiveness and resilience narrative. The technologies do not change, but the reasons people find them convincing do. A wind farm, a grid‑scale battery, a hydrogen project or an efficiency upgrade can now be positioned as a hedge against volatile fossil fuel markets, a way to anchor jobs and industry domestically.
Why AI and digital infrastructure are reshaping energy narratives
The rise of AI and data‑driven industries adds another layer to the energy story. Data centres, high‑performance computing and emerging AI applications are ridiculously energy‑intensive and highly sensitive to grid reliability. This makes energy systems an invisible foundation of national digital competitiveness.
Recent commentary around AI infrastructure emphasises that digital innovation depends on resilient grids, secure mineral supply chains and flexible generation assets. Countries racing to develop AI capabilities need stable, low‑carbon power at scale, or they risk bottlenecks, higher operating costs and reputational challenges.
For energy brands, this opens up a powerful communication angle. Instead of talking about clean power in isolation, they can frame their projects as enablers of growth, AI readiness and industrial transformation. A focus on how energy investments support data centres, smart manufacturing, electrified transport and resilient public services makes the narrative more tangible and future‑oriented for both public and investor audiences.
How energy brands should adapt their communications strategy
With public, political and investor audiences all evolving, energy brands need to adjust not just what they say, but the order in which they say it and the evidence they bring. Climate ambition remains essential, but it is not enough on its own. Effective energy communications in this environment needs to do multiple things:
Show empathy: The most important and often poorly delivered message is to credibly and authentically demonstrate that you understand what consumers and businesses are going through. That is incredibly hard when at this very moment, many energy companies are announcing huge profit growth due to the war in Iran and its impact on the price of oil.
Lead with outcomes that audiences feel directly. Affordability, volatility reduction and bill stability are more important today. Energy companies need to show how their projects and strategies are helping protect customers and enable growth. Again, it can’t be lip service, it needs to be credible and real.
Emphasise energy security and resilience by explaining how domestic generation, storage, flexible assets and smarter networks reduce exposure to geopolitical disruption and supply chain shocks.
Link renewables to competitiveness and jobs: demonstrate how clean energy underpins industrial strategy, attracts investment and supports high‑quality employment in regions that need it.
Connect energy innovation to digital and AI infrastructure: position energy assets as critical enablers of data centres, AI clusters and wider digital transformation, not just as emissions‑cutting technologies.
Provide credible transition plans for investors by moving beyond headline ESG claims to show pathways, milestones and resilience under different policy and price scenarios.
To loop back to my first point about empathy, crucially, tone matters too. This is a sensitive space, and energy brands need to avoid language that sounds dismissive of climate concerns or overtly political. The most effective messages acknowledge that net zero remains a shared objective, while also accepting that audiences are more focused on how, when and at what cost that objective is pursued.
MTM’s role: helping energy brands speak to evolving audiences
All of this points to a core communications opportunity. The energy transition itself has not been abandoned, but the narratives around it have become more complex. Audiences, from bill‑payers to institutional investors, are still engaged, but they are listening for different cues and asking tougher questions.
For an agency like MTM, our value lies in helping energy brands translate that complexity into clear, credible and audience‑led communication. That means:
Understanding how public sentiment blends climate concern with security and affordability.
Tracking how investor expectations are tightening around credible transition pathways, resilience and growth themes.
Bringing in cross‑cutting narratives, such as AI infrastructure and industrial strategy, that connect energy projects to broader national priorities.
By reframing energy communications around compassion, resilience, competitiveness and value, without abandoning climate ambition, energy brands can stay aligned with how their audiences are actually thinking and make their stories more durable in a more demanding era.
Book a complementary energy messaging consultation
If you’d like to stress‑test your current positioning against shifting public and investor expectations, we’re offering a complimentary consultation on energy brand messaging, focused on security, affordability and resilience. In an informal session, you’ll be given access to our senior strategists and comms specialists to review your existing narrative and uncover opportunities to better align with how your audiences are thinking now.
Get in contact with us to book.