Introduction

The report examines how to communicate effectively with centre-right audiences in Britain on household energy efficiency and renewable technologies. It is based on qualitative narrative workshops with centre-right participants, testing different framings aligned with their values to improve engagement with climate and energy issues.

Key findings

Centre-right participants generally accepted climate change but associated it with left-leaning politics, contributing to distrust and disengagement. There was strong scepticism towards renewable technologies, particularly large-scale wind and solar, driven by concerns about cost, aesthetics, and perceived profiteering.

Energy efficiency was viewed more favourably, especially when framed as avoiding waste and promoting responsibility. Data-heavy or investment-focused narratives were widely distrusted, while messages grounded in common sense, local benefits, and credibility resonated more strongly.

Recommended language (and why it works)

Effective communication should begin with centre-right values such as responsibility, prudence, and common sense. Framing energy efficiency as avoiding waste aligns with these values and avoids contentious language such as “fuel poverty”.

Messages linking climate change to everyday impacts, including health and quality of life, can improve relevance, though moralised or emotive language may reduce credibility. Personal stories and balanced messaging are preferred over statistics or exaggerated claims. Trustworthy messengers and transparent motives are critical to engagement.

Background

Climate change has become politically polarised despite its scientific origins. There is a lack of a coherent conservative narrative, limiting engagement among centre-right audiences.

Given their influence within the British electorate, securing centre-right support is essential for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The research addresses this gap by identifying communication strategies that better align with conservative values and priorities.

Methodology

The study used four narrative workshops with 45 participants across rural and urban locations. Groups included a mix of ages and socio-economic backgrounds, with 65% aged over 55 and 60% male. Participants identified as centre-right on a political spectrum.

Workshops explored values, attitudes to climate change, and responses to four distinct narratives. These narratives were designed to test different framings of energy efficiency and renewables, enabling analysis of language, credibility, and resonance.

Four narratives on energy and climate change

Four narratives were tested: avoiding waste, health and quality of life, local energy (Great British Energy), and investment framing (smart money).

The “avoiding waste” narrative, focused on energy efficiency, was most effective, aligning with values of responsibility and pragmatism. The health framing generated mixed responses, with some resistance to language perceived as paternalistic.

The local energy narrative gained support for community ownership and local decision-making but was undermined by distrust of large-scale renewables. The investment narrative performed poorly due to scepticism towards corporate motives and financial claims.

Main learnings from the narrative workshops

Core values identified included responsibility, family security, integrity, and balance. Climate change was often seen as a left-wing issue with an “image problem”, reducing engagement among centre-right groups.

Scepticism was more prevalent among older participants, particularly in rural areas, while younger participants showed greater acceptance of climate science. There was widespread distrust of institutions, including government and businesses, and concern about the authenticity of climate advocates.

Large-scale renewable projects faced strong opposition, whereas energy efficiency was consistently supported. Participants preferred local, community-based renewable schemes and emphasised the importance of credibility, transparency, and alignment with their values.

Overall, communication strategies that prioritise values, local benefits, and authenticity are more effective than those relying on data, economic arguments, or corporate endorsement.