Business

Inflation expectations among UK businesses have climbed to their highest level in more than two years, as the economic fallout from the Middle East conflict reshapes outlooks for prices, interest rates and growth.

New data from the Bank of England shows firms now expect inflation to reach 3.5 per cent over the next 12 months, up from 3 per cent previously and marking the highest year-ahead forecast since late 2023.

The shift reflects a sharp change in sentiment following the surge in energy prices triggered by the Iran conflict, with oil and gas costs rising significantly amid disruption to global supply routes.

Alongside higher inflation expectations, businesses are now anticipating far fewer interest rate cuts than previously forecast.

Before the conflict, financial markets had expected multiple reductions in borrowing costs over the next year. However, firms now believe there could be just one rate cut in the next 12 months, and only two by 2029, as persistent inflation limits the scope for monetary easing.

Brent crude has remained above $100 a barrel, reinforcing concerns that energy-driven inflation could prove more durable than previously thought.

The rise in inflation expectations is already feeding into business behaviour. Companies now expect to increase their prices by an average of 3.7 per cent over the coming year, up from 3.4 per cent in February.

Economists warn that the impact will extend beyond energy bills, with higher costs likely to filter through into food, transport and other essential goods.

Industry groups have already flagged the potential for grocery prices to rise by as much as 9 per cent by the end of the year, while household energy bills are expected to increase sharply when the next Ofgem price cap takes effect.

The data also suggests a shift in labour market expectations. Businesses now anticipate a slight contraction in employment over the coming year, reversing earlier projections for growth.

At the same time, expected wage growth has edged down slightly to 3.4 per cent, indicating that while inflation pressures are rising, firms may be less willing or able to increase pay.

This combination of higher prices and softer wage growth raises the risk of a squeeze on real incomes, with implications for consumer spending and overall economic activity.

The latest figures come against a backdrop of already fragile economic growth. The UK economy expanded by just 0.1 per cent in the final quarter of last year, and recent forecasts from the OECD suggest the country could face the weakest growth and highest inflation among G7 economies as a result of the conflict.

Rising borrowing costs are also adding pressure, with government bond yields remaining elevated compared with pre-conflict levels, reflecting investor concerns about inflation and fiscal constraints.

In addition to energy costs, companies are contending with a range of domestic pressures, including increases in the minimum wage and higher business rates.

These factors are compounding the impact of global shocks, creating a challenging environment for firms already operating with tight margins.

Elliott Jordan-Doak of Pantheon Macroeconomics said the surge in energy prices is already influencing business decisions.

“Higher costs are weighing on hiring plans and leading to increased price-setting intentions,” he said, although he noted that medium-term expectations remain relatively stable for now.

The rise in inflation expectations signals a turning point in the UK’s economic outlook, with the prospect of sustained price pressures reshaping both business strategy and monetary policy.

For the Bank of England, the challenge will be balancing the need to control inflation against the risk of further weakening growth.

For businesses and households, the implications are more immediate: higher costs, tighter financial conditions and a more uncertain economic environment in the months ahead.

Read more:
Inflation fears surge as rate cut hopes fade for UK businesses

SpaceX is preparing for what could become the largest stock market debut in history after confidentially filing for an initial public offering that may value the company at more than $1.75 trillion.

The Elon Musk-led group has submitted a draft IPO registration to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, according to reports, setting the stage for a landmark listing that would dwarf previous tech flotations.

The move comes amid a surge of interest in artificial intelligence and space-based infrastructure, with other high-profile firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic also exploring potential public listings.

SpaceX’s IPO plans follow its recent merger with xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence venture behind the Grok chatbot. The combined entity has already been valued at around $1.25 trillion, with SpaceX accounting for the bulk of that figure.

The integration of space technology with AI capabilities is central to the company’s strategy, positioning it at the intersection of two of the fastest-growing sectors in the global economy.

The company is reportedly preparing investors for the listing through a series of briefings, including an analyst day scheduled for April 21 and further meetings with banks in early May.

Analysts are also expected to be given insight into xAI’s operations, highlighting the increasing importance of artificial intelligence within the broader SpaceX ecosystem.

Founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, SpaceX has become the dominant force in the global launch market, conducting more rocket launches annually than any other company.

Its operations span advanced rocket development, satellite deployment and the fast-growing Starlink network, which provides broadband connectivity worldwide.

The company is also exploring ambitious new projects, including plans to deploy up to one million satellites designed to function as orbital data centres, potentially transforming how computing power is delivered globally.

Beyond its commercial operations, SpaceX continues to pursue Musk’s long-standing vision of expanding human presence beyond Earth.

The company is working towards establishing a self-sustaining lunar base within the next decade and has outlined plans to begin building a city on Mars within five to seven years, although Musk has indicated that the Moon remains the immediate priority.

A successful IPO at the scale envisaged would have significant implications for global financial markets, potentially becoming the largest listing ever and reshaping investor exposure to both space and AI technologies.

It would also mark a major milestone in the commercialisation of space, signalling that the sector has matured into a core component of the global technology landscape.

While details of the listing, including timing and final valuation, remain subject to market conditions and regulatory approval, the scale of the proposed IPO underscores the rapid evolution of both the space and AI industries.

For investors, the offering represents a rare opportunity to gain exposure to a company that sits at the forefront of multiple transformative technologies.

For the broader market, it could set a new benchmark for tech valuations and further accelerate competition in sectors that are already redefining the future of the global economy.

Read more:
SpaceX files for record-breaking IPO with $1.75tn valuation target

Jim Ratcliffe has thrown his support behind Conservative proposals to scrap carbon taxes, intensifying the debate over the cost of net zero policies and their impact on UK industry.

The billionaire founder of Ineos said he welcomed plans from Kemi Badenoch to remove levies on carbon emissions, arguing that current policies are undermining competitiveness and driving up energy costs for businesses and households.

Ratcliffe said he supported a pragmatic approach to energy policy that ensures affordability while maintaining environmental goals, warning that excessive taxation risks damaging domestic industry.

The Conservative proposal would scrap carbon pricing mechanisms such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which requires industrial firms to purchase allowances to cover their emissions.

Supporters of the move argue that these costs place UK manufacturers at a disadvantage compared with international competitors, particularly in countries where carbon pricing is less stringent or absent.

Major industrial players, including ExxonMobil and Huntsman Corporation, have echoed these concerns, warning that high carbon costs are eroding margins, threatening jobs and contributing to the relocation of production overseas.

Paul Greenwood of ExxonMobil’s UK operations said his company pays “hundreds of millions of pounds” annually in carbon-related costs, while Peter Huntsman described the current system as a driver of “deindustrialisation”.

Carbon levies also feed directly into electricity costs. Under the UK’s Carbon Price Support mechanism, introduced in 2013, power generators must pay for emissions associated with fossil fuel use.

Because gas-fired power stations often set the wholesale electricity price, these costs are passed through to consumers, increasing bills across the economy.

Analysis from energy think tank Ember suggests that carbon taxes account for a significant proportion of generation costs, with implications for both businesses and households.

The proposal has exposed a sharp political divide over the future of the UK’s energy and climate policy.

Badenoch said scrapping carbon taxes would help reverse decades of industrial decline and strengthen national resilience, arguing that current policies are making it harder for businesses to operate competitively.

However, critics warn that removing carbon pricing could undermine efforts to reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources.

Greenpeace UK has argued that carbon taxes remain a critical tool for driving investment in low-carbon technologies, while also questioning how the government would replace the lost revenue.

Scrapping carbon levies could also put the UK at odds with international frameworks, particularly the European Union’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is designed to level the playing field for industries facing carbon costs.

A divergence in policy could create new trade complexities, particularly for exporters operating across European markets.

Trade bodies representing energy-intensive sectors, including the Chemical Industries Association and Ceramics UK, have warned that many green technologies required to decarbonise industry are not yet commercially viable.

As a result, companies argue they are being forced to bear high costs without access to practical alternatives, creating a risk of plant closures and reduced investment.

The debate over carbon taxes reflects a broader challenge facing policymakers: balancing the need to reduce emissions with the imperative to maintain economic competitiveness and energy security.

For businesses, the outcome will have significant implications for costs, investment decisions and long-term strategy.

For the government, the question is whether adjustments to the current framework can address industry concerns without undermining progress towards net zero.

As pressure mounts from both industry and environmental groups, the future of carbon pricing is set to remain a central issue in the UK’s economic and energy policy agenda.

Read more:
Ratcliffe backs tory plan to scrap carbon taxes amid industry pressure

The Bank of England has warned that escalating tensions in the Middle East could push the UK towards a financial crisis scenario, as rising energy costs, higher borrowing rates and market volatility expose underlying vulnerabilities in the economy.

In its latest assessment, the Bank’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) said the Iran conflict has already triggered a “substantial” shock to global markets, tightening financial conditions and increasing inflationary pressures at a time when risks were already elevated.

One of the most immediate impacts is being felt by homeowners. The Bank estimates that around 5.2 million borrowers, more than half of all mortgaged households, are now expected to face higher repayments by 2028, up from 3.9 million before the conflict began.

The increase reflects a sharp shift in market expectations for interest rates, with investors scaling back hopes of cuts and, in some cases, pricing in further rises.

More than 1,500 mortgage products have already been withdrawn from the market as lenders react to increased volatility, further limiting options for borrowers.

Andrew Bailey cautioned that markets may be overreacting to the outlook for rates, but acknowledged that the environment has become significantly more uncertain.

The conflict has disrupted global energy supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for oil and gas exports. The resulting surge in energy prices is feeding directly into inflation, raising the prospect of sustained cost pressures across the economy.

The FPC warned that higher inflation would weigh on growth while increasing borrowing costs, creating a challenging environment for both households and businesses.

Fuel prices have already risen sharply, and further increases in household energy bills are expected later in the year, adding to the cost-of-living squeeze.

The Bank also highlighted growing instability in financial markets. Hedge funds have unwound around £19 billion of positions linked to expectations of falling interest rates, contributing to volatility in short-term borrowing costs.

At the same time, the increasing interconnectedness of equity and bond markets, partly driven by hedge fund activity, raises the risk that stress in one area could quickly spread to others.

“A sharp correction in equity markets could transmit stress to gilt markets,” the committee warned, pointing to the potential for broader financial disruption.

Particular concern has been raised about the $18 trillion private credit sector, which has expanded rapidly since the financial crisis and now plays a significant role in corporate lending.

The recent collapse of Market Financial Solutions was cited as an example of vulnerabilities in the sector, including high leverage, limited transparency and optimistic valuations.

Bailey drew parallels with the early stages of the 2008 crisis, noting that initial warnings about isolated problems can sometimes underestimate systemic risks.

The report also flagged rising risks in sovereign debt markets, with governments, including the UK, issuing large volumes of bonds to finance spending.

The UK is expected to spend more than £100 billion this year on debt interest alone, limiting fiscal flexibility and reducing the ability to respond to future shocks.

The FPC warned that the combination of higher borrowing costs and weaker growth could create a “debt trap” for some economies, further amplifying global financial risks.

Despite the warnings, the Bank stressed that the UK’s core financial system remains resilient, with banks well capitalised and capable of absorbing shocks.

However, it cautioned that the combination of multiple pressures, including high household debt, market volatility and geopolitical uncertainty, increases the risk of a more severe downturn if conditions deteriorate further.

The Bank’s assessment underscores the fragility of the current economic environment, where global events are quickly feeding into domestic financial conditions.

For households, the prospect of higher mortgage payments and rising living costs presents a significant challenge. For businesses, tighter financial conditions and weaker demand could constrain investment and growth.

For policymakers, the task is to navigate a narrow path between controlling inflation and supporting economic stability, while preparing for the possibility that the current shock could evolve into a broader financial crisis if multiple risks materialise at once.

Read more:
Bank of England warns Iran war could trigger financial crisis risks

Regions across England and Wales are set to receive up to £20 million each in fresh government funding to accelerate innovation and drive local economic growth, as ministers push to strengthen the UK’s regional technology and industrial base.

The investment, delivered through the Local Innovation Partnerships Fund, forms part of a wider £500 million programme aimed at supporting high-growth sectors and unlocking regional potential across the country.

The latest round builds on earlier allocations, including backing for Scotland’s Tay City Region, and reflects a broader strategy to decentralise innovation and ensure economic benefits are spread beyond traditional hubs.

The funding will support a diverse range of sectors, with each region focusing on its existing strengths.

In the South West, investment will be directed towards developing autonomous technologies, including drones operating across land, sea and air, with the aim of establishing the region as a global leader in testing and deployment.

The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor will receive support to accelerate advancements in autonomous vehicles, high-performance engineering and space technology, helping to bridge the gap between research and real-world application.

In Greater Lincolnshire, the focus will be on combining agri-tech expertise with defence capabilities to create commercially viable products and expand local businesses.

Meanwhile, South-West Wales will see investment in two connected clusters: energy security, centred on offshore wind and hydrogen, and materials security, aimed at improving the recycling and processing of critical resources to reduce reliance on imports.

The East Midlands is set to benefit from funding to scale clean energy and advanced manufacturing technologies, including the development of testing and validation facilities that will help smaller firms collaborate with global manufacturers.

In northern England, regions including East Yorkshire, Hull and Tees Valley will receive enhanced support, with funding packages of up to £30 million, to drive industrial decarbonisation and clean energy projects, reflecting their strategic importance in the UK’s transition to net zero.

Local partners will work with UK Research and Innovation to design and deliver projects that translate research into commercial outcomes.

The programme aims to fast-track innovation by supporting collaborative research and development, attracting specialist talent and creating clearer pathways to investment and market entry.

Liz Kendall said the funding demonstrates the government’s commitment to harnessing innovation across all regions.

“This investment will take local expertise to the next level, helping to create jobs and growth from Teesside to Cornwall,” she said, highlighting the role of regional partnerships between businesses, researchers and local leaders.

The initiative reflects a growing recognition that innovation-led growth must be geographically diverse to maximise economic impact.

By building on existing regional strengths, whether in advanced manufacturing, clean energy or digital technologies, the government aims to create self-sustaining innovation ecosystems capable of competing globally.

As competition for investment intensifies and technological change accelerates, the ability of regions to develop and commercialise new ideas will be critical to the UK’s economic future.

The latest funding round signals a shift towards more place-based innovation policy, with a focus on turning local expertise into national growth.

If successful, the programme could help unlock new industries, support high-skilled jobs and reinforce the UK’s position as a leader in emerging technologies, not just in London and the South East, but across the entire country.

Read more:
Regions from Teesside to Cornwall awarded up to £20m to boost innovation

Taking a chance on something is exciting, and many people are drawn to the thrill that it offers.

Whether it’s camping out for the latest deals on Black Friday, playing slots or taking part in a gameshow, the chance to win big taps into the part of our brain that enjoys taking risks for the chance of a reward. Taking chances creates excitement and the rush people feel isn’t about winning itself, but not knowing what will happen next.

The Psychology of Risk Taking

Our brains have developed over many millions of years of evolution to enable us to survive in difficult and challenging environments. One of the key components of human psychology is related to how the brain rewards risk-taking behaviour. When we anticipate a potential reward, the brain releases dopamine, which increases motivation and excitement.

This reward system was a useful survival tool in the early days of human history, motivating our ancestors to hunt, forage for food and discover new things. However, this same system is still present today. It motivates a lot of human behaviour, especially when it comes to taking risks.

Although we still experience caution in the face of risk, with losses feeling worse than wins in many cases, low-cost risks can override this feeling. That’s why low-stakes slots are so popular. If the possible gain feels large and the potential loss is small, the risk feels like it’s worth it.

The Unpredictability and Excitement of Online Casino Games

Online gambling is essentially an expression of our attraction to risk and reward. Casino and sports betting platforms are designed to tap into the brain’s need for dopamine and anticipation by offering unpredictable outcomes that keep players engaged.

Most platforms offer a variety of games and ways to play, but few are as popular as online slots. These offer simple gameplay mechanics that are designed to stimulate the brain’s variable reward system as much as possible. Megaways slots offer a unique mechanic which changes the number of ways to win on every spin, making every round unpredictable and keeping players anticipating the outcome every time. The high number of possible winning combinations, in addition to the bonus features often built into these games, help make them especially engaging.

However, players should always be mindful of their limits and approach gambling responsibly to ensure it remains a safe and enjoyable experience.

Cultural and Social Factors

Our tendency to take risks is a major part of our brain chemistry, but it’s also influenced by society and culture. Making a gamble that pays off creates a great story that’s worth telling all your friends. People love to share stories of times they’ve taken risks, and even if it doesn’t work out, it creates an interesting anecdote to share. Those who have hit a big jackpot or won a game show will become widely known in their circle of friends, with the story likely retold again and again over the years.

Risk-taking can also be a fun social activity. Many people who enjoy playing bingo or enjoying casino games prefer to do so in the company of their friends, where they can share the excitement of their wins and receive commiserations for their losses or near wins. Game shows thrive on the energy of the crowd, where cheers, gasps and even groans help add to the drama and excitement, both for the contestants and the audience watching.

The media has also helped to popularise certain types of risk-taking behaviour. High-stakes game shows, where contestants chase big prizes in a double-or-nothing round, are incredibly popular. Seeing someone take a big risk, whether they win or lose, feeds the fascination with risk-taking. In addition, social media has helped popularise risky trends and allowed people to share their stories of taking chances more easily.

Why We Keep Coming Back

Risks may not always pay off, but people will keep coming back again and again, especially if the stakes are low. Take a lottery ticket, for example. Some people will buy a ticket every week for their entire lives without ever winning. Even just fantasising about what you’d win with the jackpot is enough to motivate your brain to do it again the following week.

Hope is entertaining, and the possibility of achieving something great, even if the odds are low, will create enough motivation to take that chance. Imagining the win can often be just as satisfying as the win itself. For a lot of people, hope and daydreaming can provide control over an uncertain and unpredictable world.

Even when the odds aren’t in our favour, taking a chance feels exciting and it can be a lot of fun. Of course, risk-taking can also lead to negative outcomes, especially when you’re gambling with your health or with real money. As a result, it’s important to always consider the potential impact of any risk, and avoid doing things that are considered unsafe or that might result in harm.

Read more:
Why People Love Taking Chances: From Holiday Deals to Game Shows

Oracle has begun cutting thousands of jobs as it accelerates a costly push into artificial intelligence infrastructure, with analysts warning the layoffs could ultimately reach tens of thousands of roles.

Employees were informed via email that their positions were being eliminated “as part of a broader organisational change”, with some workers immediately locked out of company systems. The abrupt nature of the cuts has drawn attention across the tech sector, particularly as Oracle seeks to free up capital for its expanding AI ambitions.

The company, founded by Larry Ellison, employs around 160,000 people globally, and analysts have suggested that between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs could be at risk as part of the restructuring.

The layoffs come amid a major shift in Oracle’s strategy, as it commits tens of billions of dollars to building data centres to support the rapid growth of artificial intelligence.

The company has forecast spending of up to $50 billion this year alone on new infrastructure, designed to provide computing power for major clients including OpenAI and Meta.

This follows a landmark agreement with OpenAI, which said it would spend around $300 billion over time on AI processing capacity, a deal that initially boosted investor confidence but has since raised concerns about execution risk and financial exposure.

Oracle’s share price has fallen sharply in recent months, shedding around half its value as investors question the scale and sustainability of its AI investment strategy.

The company is expected to fund much of its expansion through a combination of debt and equity, prompting fears about balance sheet pressure and the potential for overspending in a highly competitive and rapidly evolving market.

Concerns were heightened when Blue Owl Capital withdrew from financing a $10 billion data centre project in Michigan, signalling growing caution among backers.

Those affected by the cuts have begun speaking publicly, emphasising that the layoffs are not linked to individual performance but to broader strategic changes.

Michael Shepherd, an Oracle operations manager, described the move as a “significant reduction in force” impacting “talented and high-performing people”, reflecting the scale and seriousness of the restructuring.

The cuts are expected to focus heavily on operational and support roles, as the company reallocates resources towards high-growth areas such as cloud computing and AI infrastructure.

Ellison, now 81 and still serving as Oracle’s chief technology officer and largest shareholder, remains central to the company’s strategic direction.

His aggressive push into AI reflects a broader race among technology giants to dominate the next phase of computing, but also carries significant financial risk given the scale of required investment.

Beyond Oracle, Ellison has also been involved in other major ventures, including backing large-scale media acquisitions and maintaining close ties with political and business leaders.

Oracle’s move is part of a wider trend across the technology sector, where companies are restructuring workforces to fund AI development and infrastructure.

As demand for computing power surges, firms are increasingly prioritising capital-intensive investments over traditional operational spending, leading to job cuts even among profitable businesses.

The success of Oracle’s strategy will depend on whether its AI investments deliver sustained growth and returns that justify the scale of spending.

In the short term, the layoffs highlight the trade-offs facing technology companies as they navigate a period of rapid transformation.

For employees, the shift underscores the changing nature of work in the digital economy. For investors, it raises questions about how far companies can go in the race for AI dominance without undermining financial stability.

As the industry continues to evolve, Oracle’s high-stakes bet on AI will be closely watched as a bellwether for the broader tech sector.

Read more:
Oracle cuts thousands of jobs as Ellison doubles down on AI investment

Britain risks becoming heavily dependent on US gas imports within the next decade, prompting renewed calls for increased North Sea production to safeguard energy security.

New analysis from Wood Mackenzie suggests that liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States could account for around 60 per cent of the UK’s gas supply by 2035, a dramatic increase from roughly 10 per cent in 2024.

The forecast comes at a time of heightened geopolitical tension and volatility in global energy markets, raising concerns about the risks of relying on a single external supplier.

Britain’s domestic gas production has been declining steadily for decades, with output from the North Sea now at its lowest level since the early 1970s. As supply falls, the country has become increasingly reliant on imports, including pipeline gas from Norway and LNG shipments from overseas.

In 2024, the UK sourced around 43 per cent of its gas from the domestic North Sea, a similar share from Norway, and the remainder from LNG imports, the majority of which came from the United States.

Wood Mackenzie’s projections suggest this balance will shift significantly over the next decade, as domestic production continues to decline faster than overall demand.

The consultancy argues that boosting domestic oil and gas output could help reduce exposure to international market shocks and improve resilience.

Gail Anderson, a research director at Wood Mackenzie, said the UK should adopt a broad approach to energy policy, combining renewables with continued use of domestic hydrocarbons and emerging technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen.

“Reducing dependence on LNG imports should be a priority,” she said, particularly in an environment where energy supplies are increasingly influenced by geopolitical conflict.

The analysis also suggests that gas produced in the UK continental shelf has a lower carbon footprint than LNG transported across the Atlantic and can be supplied at significantly lower cost in the short term.

The findings are likely to intensify debate within government over the future of North Sea production.

Industry groups have warned that declining output is being accelerated by tax policies and restrictions on new exploration licences, which they argue limit the UK’s ability to maximise domestic resources.

However, the government maintains that expanding fossil fuel extraction is not the solution to long-term energy security or price stability, emphasising instead the need to accelerate the transition to clean, homegrown energy.

A government spokesperson said the focus remains on maintaining existing production while investing in renewable energy and reducing reliance on volatile global markets.

Most analysts agree that increasing North Sea production would have only a limited effect on consumer energy prices, which are largely determined by global markets.

However, proponents argue that even modest increases in domestic supply could improve security and reduce vulnerability to supply disruptions.

The debate has been sharpened by recent developments in the Middle East, where conflict has disrupted key shipping routes and contributed to rising energy prices.

The risk of further escalation has highlighted the strategic importance of secure and diversified energy supplies for import-dependent countries such as the UK.

As the UK continues its transition towards net zero, balancing short-term energy security with long-term decarbonisation goals remains a central challenge.

The latest analysis suggests that without intervention, reliance on imported gas, particularly from the US, will increase significantly, raising questions about resilience and cost.

For policymakers, the task will be to navigate these competing priorities, ensuring that the UK’s energy system remains secure, affordable and sustainable in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

Read more:
UK warned it will rely on US gas as calls grow to boost North Sea output

Unilever has agreed a £50 billion ($66 billion) deal to combine its food brands with McCormick & Company, placing household names such as Marmite, Hellmann’s and Colman’s mustard under American leadership.

The transaction will create what both companies describe as a “global flavour powerhouse”, bringing together Unilever’s food portfolio, including Knorr, Bovril and Pot Noodle, with McCormick’s existing brands such as French’s mustard and Schwartz spices.

Under the terms of the agreement, Unilever will retain a 65 per cent stake in the combined entity, but the business will operate under McCormick’s name and management, with headquarters in the United States and a listing in New York. The Anglo-Dutch group will also receive $15.7 billion in cash.

The deal represents another major step in Unilever’s ongoing strategy to streamline its portfolio and focus on higher-growth areas such as personal care and beauty.

Chief executive Fernando Fernández said the move would unlock value by separating out the food division and combining it with a partner that has deep expertise in flavourings and seasonings.

“We are creating a scaled, global business with strong growth potential,” he said, describing the transaction as a decisive step in repositioning the company.

The sale follows a series of divestments, including the disposal of Unilever’s spreads business in 2017 and the sale of its tea division in 2022, as well as the recent demerger of its ice cream operations.

The companies expect to generate around $600 million in cost savings from the deal, largely through greater purchasing power and operational efficiencies.

However, the prospect of such savings has raised concerns about potential job losses and factory closures, particularly in the UK, where several of the brands have deep historical roots.

Brendan Foley, McCormick’s chairman, acknowledged that efficiencies could extend to manufacturing and distribution, although he stopped short of confirming any specific plans.

The deal has sparked a backlash among some industry figures and commentators, reflecting the cultural significance of brands such as Marmite, which has been produced in Burton-on-Trent since 1902, and Colman’s mustard, which dates back to 1814 in Norwich.

Critics argue that these products risk losing their identity as they become part of a larger global conglomerate, with concerns that strategic decisions could prioritise efficiency over heritage.

The transaction also continues a broader trend of historic British food brands coming under foreign ownership, following previous takeovers involving companies such as Cadbury and Lea & Perrins.

Investors reacted cautiously to the announcement, with Unilever’s shares falling more than 7 per cent following the news.

Analysts have pointed to the long timeline for completion, expected in mid-2027, as a source of uncertainty, with regulatory approvals and integration risks still to be navigated.

If completed, the deal will reshape the global food and flavourings market, creating a combined entity with significant scale and reach.

For Unilever, it marks a continued pivot away from traditional food brands towards faster-growing consumer categories. For McCormick, it represents a major expansion that strengthens its position as a global leader in flavour.

For consumers, the immediate impact may be limited. However, over time, decisions around pricing, production and branding could determine how these iconic products evolve under new ownership.

As the deal progresses, attention will focus on whether the promised growth and efficiencies can be delivered, and what it ultimately means for the future of some of Britain’s most recognisable food brands.

Read more:
Marmite and Hellmann’s to join US giant in £50bn flavour deal

Family business owners across the UK have warned that sweeping changes to inheritance tax rules risk undermining long-term growth, forcing sales and diverting investment away from expansion, as new limits on business relief come into force.

From April 6, reforms to business property relief, now known as business relief, will introduce a £2.5 million cap on the amount that can be passed on free from inheritance tax. Assets above that threshold will be subject to an effective 20 per cent tax rate, with married couples able to combine allowances up to £5 million.

The changes mark a significant shift from the previous regime, under which qualifying business assets could be transferred entirely tax-free, and have prompted widespread concern among entrepreneurs and advisers.

Industry figures say the relatively short lead time for the reforms has left many firms scrambling to reassess succession plans that have been built over decades.

Advisers working with family-owned businesses report a surge in demand for tax planning services, as owners attempt to restructure holdings, consider partial sales or bring forward succession decisions.

Matthew Ayres, managing director of Bennie Group, a fourth-generation family business operating in construction and equipment supply, said the timeframe has been “far too short” to adapt.

“Family businesses are spending their time inwardly doing tax planning instead of growing their businesses,” he said, describing the reforms as “madness”.

Research from Family Business UK suggests the impact will be broad. Of 559 family business owners surveyed, 57 per cent said they expect to be materially affected by the changes, while only around one in ten believe they will avoid any impact.

The organisation estimates there are 5.1 million family businesses in the UK, employing 15.8 million people and generating £2.8 trillion in turnover, making the sector a cornerstone of the national economy.

However, more than a quarter of firms surveyed believe they may not remain family-owned within the next decade, with the tax changes cited as a key factor.

Business leaders warn that the reforms could accelerate the sale of family firms, as owners seek to avoid future tax liabilities or reduce the complexity of succession.

Ayres said his company has already seen an increase in acquisition opportunities, as other business owners opt to sell rather than pass their companies on to the next generation.

For some, the cost of transferring ownership under the new rules may outweigh the benefits of retaining family control, potentially leading to consolidation within industries and greater involvement from external investors.

The inheritance tax changes arrive at a time when companies are already facing rising costs across multiple fronts, including increases in the national living wage, higher business rates and escalating energy bills.

Ongoing geopolitical tensions, particularly in the Middle East, are also contributing to economic uncertainty, with higher energy prices feeding through into operating costs and inflation.

Together, these factors are creating what business leaders describe as a “perfect storm” of pressures, limiting the capacity of firms to invest, hire and grow.

Family Business UK is calling for a full review and potential reversal of the reforms, arguing that they risk weakening a vital part of the UK economy.

Chief executive Neil Davy said family firms play a unique role in supporting local communities and delivering long-term economic stability.

“They are rooted in Britain’s towns and cities in a way global corporations can never be,” he said, warning that current policies may inadvertently favour external investors over established domestic businesses.

The organisation is also advocating for broader reforms, including changes to business rates, improved access to export finance and new incentives to support employee ownership and community investment.

The debate over inheritance tax reform highlights a broader tension between raising government revenues and supporting business continuity.

While the changes are intended to ensure a more balanced tax system, critics argue they could have unintended consequences for investment, employment and the structure of the UK economy.

As the new rules take effect, the full impact is likely to unfold over several years, influencing how businesses plan succession, allocate capital and approach long-term strategy.

For family firms, the immediate challenge is navigating a more complex and costly inheritance landscape. For policymakers, the question is whether the reforms will deliver the intended benefits, or come at the expense of one of the UK’s most important economic foundations.

Read more:
Inheritance tax overhaul sparks backlash as family firms warn of lasting damage