Business

Let’s get something straight right at the outset: The idea of banning working from home is not merely daft, not a bit ill-advised, but a spectacular, full-on intellectual car crash wearing a stupid hat.

And the fact that this notion is being flirted with seriously in political circles tells you everything you need to know about how out of touch this country’s Westminster bubble has become.

If you’ve been reading my scribblings on this subject for the last decade, such as Why forcing a return to the office is a step backwards for business and Bodies, bums, cost money, can you go virtual, then you’ll know I’ve not exactly been shy about waving the flag for flexibility. I’ve argued that work isn’t a location; it’s a thing you do. Deadlines don’t care about Tube strikes. Creativity doesn’t flourish because you’ve got a corner desk with a view of Canary Wharf. Pencils don’t write better in the City.

And yet here we are, in 2026, watching the same fossils who championed touchdown desks as if they were a breakthrough in human civilisation roll out the same old chestnuts about presenteeism, ‘office culture’, and “We have to see people at their desks!” — as if productivity is directly proportional to proximity to a swivel chair.

What makes this iteration of absurdity particularly galling is the political context. The current political mood music suggests that Nigel Farage could well be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now, I am not here to start a partisan fracas, but I am here to call out nonsense wherever it crops up, regardless of which side of the aisle it’s draped in. And when someone positioned to lead the country describes working from home as something to ban, you have to wonder whether they’ve ever, you know, worked.

If your understanding of remote working is limited to the fleeting glimpse you get when the BBC cuts to a home office with a bobble-head on a shelf, then yes, you might think working from home is an indulgence. A luxury. A mild form of leisure. But as anyone who has actually managed teams through screens, as I wrote in Managing your team through a small screen, will tell you, there’s nothing remotely relaxed about aligning global calendars, coaching through glitches, wiring up video calls while your dog thinks he’s invited, and delivering outcomes that matter.

One of the clearest articulations I’ve read on this came from Mark Dixon, founder of Regus, yes, the flexible workspace titan with a vested interest in desks existing everywhere, and yet unambiguously clear that banning remote working is idiotic. His comments, in an interview with The Times, pierced the usual fog of clichés: flexibility is not the enemy of collaboration; it is its enabler. People don’t want to be forced back into a dungeon of desks five days a week; they want meaningful connection on their terms. If that means meeting in person for ideation and spending the rest of the week where they can function best, then great. If it means satellite offices closer to where people live, brilliant. But banning WFH altogether? Only someone with a pathological affection for sepia-tinted office fantasies could back that.

Let’s unpack why this matters beyond the tedium of managerial turf wars, and to put my bona fides out there on this topic Capital Business Media – owners of Business Matters – has doubled turnover  in three years with not a single staff member being in the same ‘office’ as their colleagues.

First: productivity. The best evidence we have, from countless businesses large and small, is that output does not collapse when people work from home. The idea that remote work is synonymous with loafing is a myth lazy commentators cling to because it’s a convenient continuation of their own nostalgia for commutes on Tube trains smelling faintly of regret.

Second: talent. The modern workforce is not static; it does not orbit offices like electrons around a corporate nucleus. People prioritise flexibility, and talent migrates to where they find it. Companies that cling to “You must be here 9–5, no exceptions” do not become magnets for the best people; they become boarding houses for the most compliant. If banning WFH becomes legislation, businesses will reward political interference with a choice: move work abroad, automate it, or collapse under its own inertia.

Third: the economy. There’s a pernicious assumption among some policymakers that an office full of bodies equals economic vitality. But let’s be honest, the office economy is a facade propped up by overpriced coffee, sandwich chains with dubious pension plans, and pastry carts wheeled out of a desire to feel busier than we are. Real economic value is created by effective, sustainable work, whether it’s done in a studio in Sussex, a flat in Glasgow, or an airport lounge in Zurich during a layover.

Far from being a quaint perk, remote working is an economic force multiplier. It reduces carbon emissions from commuting, diminishes pressure on housing markets in overheated urban centres, and spreads spending power geographically. It’s not a threat to society; it’s an evolution of it.

So let’s be clear: banning WFH isn’t just about where people sit. It’s about control. It’s about a cultural insistence on seeing busyness as virtue rather than effectiveness. It’s about politicians pining for a world they half-remember through the filmy lens of “office culture” brochures from the early 2000s.

My suggestion? If anyone seriously proposes a ban on working from home, we should ask them this: “Have you ever delivered an entire quarterly business review over Zoom? Have you ever coordinated a multinational project without once stepping foot in an office? Have you ever actually assessed work by outcomes rather than appearances?”

Until they can answer yes, I’d be wary of taking their advice on the future of work seriously.

Because whatever happens next in Westminster, let’s not consign the world of work to a bunker called an office. That’s not progress. That’s nostalgia dressed up as policy. And in an era when adaptability is a competitive advantage, banning working from home isn’t just backward-looking, it’s lunacy.

Read more:
Banning WFH is lunacy, and the politicians out of touch enough to mandate it are too

Alphabet has unveiled plans to spend between $175bn and $185bn this year, sharply exceeding Wall Street expectations as it intensifies its push in the global artificial intelligence race.

The capital expenditure target is well above analysts’ average forecast of about $115bn, according to LSEG data, and marks another escalation in spending among the world’s technology hyperscalers.

The announcement came alongside strong fourth-quarter results. Revenue rose 18 per cent year-on-year to $113.8bn, narrowly ahead of forecasts of $111.3bn. Net income climbed 30 per cent to $34.5bn, comfortably beating expectations of $31.9bn.

Despite the earnings beat, Alphabet shares slipped 1.4 per cent in after-hours trading, reflecting investor unease over the scale of spending commitments.

Under chief executive Sundar Pichai, Alphabet has repositioned itself as a leading force in AI after earlier concerns that start-ups such as OpenAI might disrupt its core search business.

Google’s Gemini model has become a central pillar of its strategy, with the Gemini AI assistant app exceeding 650 million monthly users in November. Its AI Overviews feature within search has reached more than 2 billion monthly users.

The company is also investing heavily in custom AI chips and data centre infrastructure, which investors hope will drive future growth.

Last month, Google secured a high-profile partnership with Apple to power an upgraded version of Siri with Gemini models, opening access to Apple’s installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices.

Nikhil Lai, principal analyst at Forrester, said the results demonstrated resilience in Alphabet’s core advertising business. “Record ad revenue signals sustained momentum in search and solid performance from YouTube,” he said, noting that YouTube’s scale now exceeds that of Netflix.

Alphabet’s shares have surged over the past year, rising more than 64 per cent and pushing its market capitalisation above $4tn — second only to Nvidia, valued at around $4.3tn.

However, wider market sentiment towards AI stocks has turned more cautious. Last week, Microsoft reported slower cloud growth, prompting a sell-off amid concerns about the sustainability of heavy AI investment. While Meta reassured investors with upbeat revenue guidance, other names struggled.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both declined as investors reassessed lofty valuations. Shares in Advanced Micro Devices fell sharply after a weak revenue outlook, while Palantir also dropped on AI spending concerns.

Jed Ellerbroek, portfolio manager at Argent Capital, said the scale of AI infrastructure build-out was unprecedented. “The market is having a hard time knowing where to price these stocks and what the future looks like,” he said. “There’s growing scepticism about whether the rally has peaked.”

For Alphabet, the strategy is clear: double down on infrastructure to secure long-term AI leadership. Whether investors remain willing to fund that ambition at such scale will depend on how quickly those vast capital commitments translate into durable returns.

Read more:
Alphabet ramps up AI spending with up to $185bn capital plan

Greene King is weighing up a fresh round of job cuts as Britain’s second-largest pub chain grapples with rising taxes, higher operating costs and mounting pressure on consumer spending.

The 227-year-old company, which operates around 2,600 pubs across the UK, is understood to be reviewing its head office and central functions, with up to 100 roles potentially affected. No final decision has been taken.

The move would mark the second major restructuring in under two years. In 2023, Greene King cut significant numbers of head office and field-based staff, saying the overhaul was necessary to help the business “thrive in challenging times”.

Founded in 1799 by Benjamin Greene in Bury St Edmunds, the company is one of Britain’s oldest brewing and pub groups, known for brands including Greene King IPA, Old Speckled Hen and Abbot Ale. It operates a mix of managed pubs, which it runs directly, alongside leased and tenanted sites.

Like much of the hospitality sector, Greene King has faced a sharp escalation in costs. Energy bills, food and drink ingredients and wages have all risen significantly in recent years.

Industry leaders have been particularly vocal about changes to employer national insurance contributions (NICs), including the lowering of the threshold at which they are paid, a move that disproportionately affects sectors reliant on part-time and lower-paid staff.

Many pubs are also bracing for higher business rates from April. While the government has introduced a support package, campaigners argue it may not be sufficient to offset the burden.

At the same time, alcohol consumption in Britain has softened as households face tighter budgets and shifting health trends.

In December, Greene King’s chief executive Nick Mackenzie warned of a “constant layering of costs” and urged ministers to provide further support for the sector.

Despite a 3.2 per cent increase in sales to £2.45bn in 2024, Greene King reported a pre-tax loss of £147.1m in its latest accounts. Adjusted operating profits stood at £198m. The company employed around 1,000 head office staff during the year.

Greene King was taken private in 2019 in a £2.7bn deal by Hong Kong-based CK Asset Holdings, owned by billionaire Li Ka-shing.

The group has continued to invest in its estate, including plans to relocate its historic Bury St Edmunds brewery to a new £40m site by 2027, where it will produce both traditional cask ales and newer beer ranges.

Greene King is not alone in cutting costs. Rival Stonegate Group, Britain’s largest pub operator and owner of the Slug & Lettuce chain, has also appointed advisers to restructure its operations. It has already cut 95 roles, with further reductions under review.

Stonegate, owned by private equity firm TDR Capital, is reportedly considering selling a package of up to 1,000 pubs to reduce debt and has been linked to a potential £1bn valuation.

For Greene King and its peers, the challenge is clear: balancing investment in heritage brands and estate upgrades with the harsh reality of rising costs and fragile consumer demand in Britain’s pubs.

Read more:
Greene King considers job cuts as soaring costs squeeze pub sector

Mark Dixon, the billionaire founder of IWG and architect of the Regus empire, has dismissed calls to ban working from home as “idiotic”, arguing that the future of productivity lies in better management, not compulsory office attendance.

Speaking to The Times, Dixon responded to remarks by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who recently declared that people are not more productive at home and pledged to scrap the practice if his party ever came to power. For Dixon, such thinking belongs to another era. “The idea that the only place you can work is in an office is idiotic,” he said. Advocates of five days a week in the office, he added, are “naive” and “Luddites”.

As chief executive and largest shareholder of IWG, the £2.2bn group behind the Regus and Spaces brands, Dixon is hardly neutral. The company promotes hybrid working as a core proposition and operates more than 4,400 locations across 122 countries. Yet his view is informed by scale and data as much as ideology. “Work can be done absolutely anywhere today,” he said. “The whole notion of offices has completely changed.”

The interview took place at Spaces Liverpool Street in the City, a recently refurbished location where corporate suits and start-up hoodies share communal tables. Dixon, 66, is softly spoken rather than bombastic, but unequivocal in his beliefs. “The key problem with work and productivity is how you manage people,” he said. “It’s not whether they’re at home or in an office.”

His approach is to manage outputs rather than presence. For his roughly 1,000 head-office staff, part of a global workforce of around 9,000, the emphasis is on delivery rather than surveillance. As for the oft-cited “water cooler moments” supposedly lost in remote working, Dixon believes they must be deliberately curated rather than left to chance. “You’ve got to schedule creative periods,” he said. “You can’t just rely on random encounters.”

Dixon’s own career has been anything but conventional. Born in Essex to a car mechanic, he began his entrepreneurial life selling topsoil to neighbours at the age of 12. After leaving school at 16 and travelling the world, he launched a sandwich delivery business in the 1980s before selling his bakery venture for £800,000. That capital financed his move to Brussels in 1989, where he spotted businesspeople conducting meetings in cafés, and identified a market for flexible office space. The first Regus centre opened later that year.

Expansion followed rapidly through Latin America, China and the United States. Regus listed in London in 2000 but narrowly avoided collapse during the dotcom crash. More recently, IWG has outlasted high-profile rival WeWork, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2023 after a spectacular fall from a $47bn valuation.

Despite persistent speculation about shifting its listing to the US, Dixon said such a move is not imminent. While about half of IWG’s business is American, he cautioned that scale is essential before any transatlantic switch. “It’s important to be big there; you don’t want to be a minnow,” he said, suggesting annual earnings would need to exceed £1bn before the company could justify the effort.

On UK politics, Dixon was less restrained. He questioned whether successive governments have truly prioritised business competitiveness, arguing that long-term economic success depends on fostering strong companies and industries.

Now based in Monaco, Dixon retains a 27 per cent stake in IWG. Asked about succession, he acknowledged the inevitability of change. “The challenge for any chief executive-founder is succession,” he said. “This is a young man’s business.” He insisted he has no ego-driven attachment to the role, only to the company’s success.

For the time being, however, he remains focused on growth, and on demonstrating that hybrid working can deliver results. The day before our conversation, he had taken his team to a nearby pub after a long meeting. “We got quite a lot done in two pints,” he said with a smile. “It was very productive.”

Read more:
Mark Dixon: ‘Banning working from home is idiotic’

Across digital platforms, visual consistency serves as the quiet representative of brands. When users encounter websites, social media profiles, or marketing materials, they form immediate impressions based on visual elements.

This pattern, or lack thereof, directly influences how trustworthy a brand appears. Consistent visual presentation communicates reliability and professionalism. This helps establish confidence among audiences and supports long-term business growth.

Individuals notice repeating patterns. When elements like logos, colours, fonts, and images remain the same each time someone interacts with a brand online, recognition and trust develop more easily. Consistency in these details helps users feel comfortable. When visual elements appear familiar, consumers are more likely to believe that products or services are reliable and the business is professional.

The Psychology Behind Visual Brand Recognition

Visual cues play a significant role in how people identify and remember brands. Elements such as logos and colour palettes can become shortcuts in the mind for recognising a brand. When brands maintain the same logo, style, and colours across all online platforms, it helps users feel more confident in the brand’s legitimacy. This recognition process can strengthen the connection between a brand and its audience, supporting trust and familiarity.

Colour psychology plays an important role in how consumers perceive brands. Different colours trigger specific emotional responses. Blue often conveys trust and reliability, while red can signal excitement or urgency. Consistent application of brand colours strengthens these emotional connections. Using a logo maker, like the one from Adobe Express, allows organisations to create consistent visual foundations efficiently.

Visual consistency can help reduce what psychologists call “cognitive load.” When customers encounter familiar visual elements, they may expend less mental effort to understand the brand identity. This familiarity can create comfort and build confidence in the brand.

Essential Elements of Visual Brand Consistency

Logo treatment forms the basis of visual brand consistency. A logo should appear in a consistent position, size, and style across all platforms. Uniform logo placement helps with immediate recognition on websites, social media feeds, and digital communications. Effective logo treatment creates a seamless experience that customers find dependable and professional.

Colour palette standardisation requires selecting primary and secondary colour schemes that remain consistent throughout all brand touchpoints. Brands following clear colour palette rules benefit from recognisable digital identities. Colour combinations should meet accessibility standards on both light and dark interfaces to ensure clear communication with all audiences.

Typography hierarchy depends on the consistent selection of two or three coordinating fonts. These fonts, chosen for headings, subheadings, and body text, should display uniform sizing across all platforms. When brands use consistent typography, customers can read information quickly, with less effort and fewer distractions.

Image style should follow clear guidelines. The same quality and composition should apply to all brand photography and graphics. A unified image style carries the brand voice into every visual touchpoint. This helps content feel cohesive and professional, making the overall brand message clear and trustworthy.

Grid Systems and Visual Hierarchy

Structured layouts create intuitive user experiences. Grid systems provide the invisible framework that organises content across digital platforms. When elements align to a grid, users can navigate content more easily. Maintaining a clean structure supports other visual elements, helping users stay oriented from page to page.

Balancing consistency with responsive design creates challenges. A well-crafted visual system needs to retain its identity even as it adapts for various screen sizes. Careful planning helps ensure continued brand recognition across devices. This preserves visual clarity regardless of how content is accessed.

Cloud-based tools allow teams to maintain visual standards in real time. These platforms offer customisable templates and brand asset libraries. Marketing teams can ensure each member accesses current logo files and follows approved colours. This method can help minimise errors like outdated graphics, especially with remote teams.

Measuring the Business Impact of Visual Consistency

Visual Consistency and Brand Performance Metrics

Maintaining consistent visual standards can influence how customers perceive and interact with a brand. When branding is predictable and cohesive, users may feel more confident in their interactions, which can support positive business outcomes.

As digital competition increases, clear brand standards help businesses stand out. A familiar visual identity can reduce hesitation and make purchasing decisions easier. A UK SME applying visual guidelines across landing pages and checkout screens may see fewer abandoned baskets. Customers may feel comfortable through each step of their journey.

Customer Trust and Recurring Business

Visual consistency signals reliability over repeat interactions. Brands maintaining strong visual standards may benefit from recurring customers. These users appreciate seamless experiences that remove doubt about authenticity. When customers recognise the same elements across channels, they may have fewer reasons to reconsider their loyalty.

Failure to keep visuals steady can lead to uncertainty. Small businesses risk losing trust when logos appear differently on partner sites. The most practical solution involves creating and sharing up-to-date asset libraries. Teams can distribute approved files and eliminate errors from inconsistent elements.

Brand Recall, Process Efficiency, and UK Market Application

Maintaining recognisable logos and styles can help customers remember brands in crowded marketplaces. Visual consistency supports brand recall and helps businesses remain memorable to their audiences.

For UK businesses in digital markets, clear guidelines for visual elements can support smoother internal processes. With staff following visual standards, design tasks may finish faster with fewer mistakes. This efficiency is especially important as companies handle more channels, allowing teams to maintain quality without added workload.

Implementing Visual Consistency Across Digital Channels

Creating unified brand guidelines is essential for visual consistency. These guidelines should document logo usage, colour specifications, and typography rules. Guidelines must remain accessible to all content creators involved with the brand. When everyone understands the rules, the brand appears coherent everywhere.

Cross-platform consistency presents unique challenges. Each digital channel has different requirements. Social media, websites, emails, and mobile apps all display content differently. A visual system must adapt while maintaining its core identity. With flexible implementation, brands keep their look steady across all channels.

Tools and workflows help maintain visual standards at scale. Brand asset management systems and structured templates help standardise visuals as content output increases. These methods become necessary where multiple contributors shape a brand identity. Working with dedicated solutions helps ensure every contributor delivers visuals that fit the brand experience.

Visual consistency across digital channels can support customer assurance and brand recall. Businesses achieving steady use of visual elements at every touchpoint may see better conversions. Online platforms provide organisations with tools for reliable visual brand governance.

Read more:
How Visual Consistency Creates Brand Trust in Digital Spaces

Over 3,907 organizations now manage $1.571 trillion in impact investing assets under management worldwide, according to Global Impact Investing Network estimates.

That figure reflects a 21 percent compound annual growth rate since 2019, but the more consequential shift lies not in volume but in structure. Capital once deployed through informal networks and trust-based relationships now flows through institutional channels demanding auditable governance, standardized reporting, and third-party verification.

Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, Chairman of Inmā Emirates Holdings, recently restructured a decade-long private family office into an institutional holding company headquartered in Dubai. The reorganization responds to a specific market constraint: pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth vehicles cannot co-invest alongside structures lacking formal investment committees, independent oversight, and externally validated impact assessments.

The Structural Gap Institutionalization Addresses

Gulf family offices historically excelled at bilateral deal-making precisely because they operated outside institutional constraints. Decisions moved quickly, relationships substituted for due diligence committees, and flexibility enabled creative structuring that rigid institutional mandates could not accommodate.

This model fails when family offices seek to scale through co-investment. A $50 million port concession can proceed on relationship capital, but a $500 million infrastructure program requiring pension fund participation cannot. Institutional allocators face fiduciary obligations, regulatory scrutiny, and board-level accountability that demand documented processes regardless of counterparty reputation.

Nearly 50,000 European companies must now publish audited impact metrics under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. ESG-focused institutional investments are projected to reach $33.9 trillion by 2026, comprising 21.5 percent of global assets under management, per KEY ESG analysis. Capital at this scale requires standardized interfaces: governance frameworks that translate relationship-driven deal flow into formats institutional compliance departments can process.

How Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum Structures Governance for Scale

Inmā operates under an investment committee with independent oversight and publishes project-specific performance indicators subject to external validation. Metrics track service delivery uptime, employment generated, and environmental outcomes, benchmarks that match development finance institution frameworks and enable direct comparison with competing capital sources.

Such architecture serves a specific function: it makes Gulf impact capital fungible with institutional money. A Dutch pension fund evaluating emerging market infrastructure exposure can now assess Inmā-structured deals using the same criteria applied to IFC or African Development Bank co-financing opportunities. The governance wrapper, not the underlying asset or geography, determines institutional accessibility.

The 50-year Karachi Port Trust concession with Abu Dhabi Ports illustrates this dynamic. Long-duration infrastructure assets generate predictable cash flows institutional investors require, while governance frameworks provide the audit trails their compliance functions demand.

The 94 Percent Performance Metric

GIIN’s 2024 Impact Investor Survey found that 94 percent of respondents reported both financial and impact performance meeting expectations, a data point that addresses the persistent assumption that impact investments require concessionary returns.

The implications extend beyond marketing into fiduciary territory. Institutional allocators operating under fiduciary duty cannot accept below-market returns regardless of social benefit, which historically confined impact investing to philanthropic carve-outs or ESG-specific mandates with lower return thresholds. The 94 percent figure permits impact investments to compete for general allocation alongside conventional asset classes.

Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum structures investments around four thematic pillars that function as both screening criteria and measurement frameworks:

Public-sector modernization: Digital infrastructure and governance systems that improve state capacity
Private enterprise development: Commercial ventures generating employment and tax revenue
Environmental sustainability: Clean energy and climate-resilient infrastructure
Community inclusion: Projects expanding access to essential services

Institutional partners can map these categories onto their own sustainability mandates and report outcomes through existing ESG disclosure channels.

Blended Finance and Risk-Return Calculations

Blended finance structures combine concessional capital from development institutions with commercial tranches from private investors. Development finance institutions absorb first-loss positions or provide guarantees that shift risk-adjusted returns into ranges acceptable to commercial capital, fundamentally altering project economics.

Multilateral development banks and DFIs co-financed approximately 30 percent of private investment in low- and middle-income country infrastructure during 2024, per Delphos analysis, while MDBs mobilized a record $137 billion in climate finance for emerging markets that same year. Each concessional dollar deployed through these structures mobilizes multiples of private financing that would otherwise remain in developed market assets.

Over 50 percent of private infrastructure investment in 2024 was classified as green, led by renewable energy projects. Emerging Africa & Asia Infrastructure Fund blends donor-backed capital, DFI support, and private investment to finance solar, wind, and grid projects that individual capital sources could not underwrite alone. When Gulf investors adopt comparable governance standards, competitive dynamics shift: projects previously dependent on DFI participation gain alternative capital sources, and DFIs themselves gain co-investment partners who bring both capital and regional relationships unavailable through traditional development finance channels.

What Constraints Limit Institutional Deployment?

Two primary constraints limit the pace of institutional capital deployment into impact investments:

Standardized metrics: Without universally accepted measurement frameworks, institutional investors cannot compare impact opportunities or verify fund manager claims against consistent benchmarks. GIIN’s IRIS system and emerging ESRS standards address this gap, but adoption remains uneven across geographies and asset classes.
Liquidity: Impact investments typically involve illiquid assets like infrastructure, real estate, and private companies that institutional portfolios can accommodate only in limited quantities. Secondary markets for impact assets remain underdeveloped, constraining capital recycling and limiting total allocation capacity.

Inmā’s focus on revenue-generating infrastructure partially addresses both constraints. Port concessions and power plants produce measurable outputs like container throughput and megawatt-hours delivered that translate directly into performance metrics, while long-duration concessions provide predictable exit timelines that substitute for liquid secondary markets.

Implications for Emerging Market Capital Access

Institutionalization of impact investing creates a new financing layer between traditional development assistance and commercial project finance, one that offers emerging market governments access to capital without the conditionality of multilateral lending or the return thresholds of purely commercial investment.

Western official development assistance contracted by 9 percent in 2024, marking the first decline in six years per OECD data. Alternative capital sources fill an expanding gap, and Gulf investors with operational track records and government relationships can participate in this space, provided they demonstrate credibility through governance frameworks that institutional partners require.

The open question is velocity. Institutional capital seeking impact exposure exceeds the supply of investment-ready opportunities meeting governance standards, creating a bottleneck at the project preparation stage rather than the capital formation stage. Family offices that institutionalize early gain first-mover access to co-investment opportunities and the relationship capital that accumulates from successful joint deployments. Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum’s restructuring of Inmā Emirates Holdings offers a template for how Gulf capital can bridge this gap by converting relationship-based deal flow into institutional-grade investment products.

Read more:
How Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum Models the Institutional Turn in Impact Investing

Plenty of businesses nowadays rely on software that used to work well in the past, but now holds them back. They slow down innovation, increase maintenance costs, and make it harder to scale or adapt to changing market demands.

However, businesses choose to stay in this “toxic relationship” rather than break free of legacy constraints because the “breakup” is associated with risks, such as potential system downtime, data loss, disruption of fragile business logic, security vulnerabilities, and temporary drops in productivity — risks that can be significantly reduced with a preliminary software audit.

If you are looking for a reliable legacy system modernization partner to mitigate the risks, explore the list below. We gathered the 5 best risk-controlled software transformation companies to help you get a system that will support the sustainable growth of your company.

Corsac Technologies

Corsac Technologies is a leading provider of legacy systems modernization services with over 18 years of experience. Corsac has been working with companies in healthcare, finance, GIS, charity, media, and more, helping businesses transform legacy systems into modern, scalable solutions.

Corsac team owns the entire cycle of system renovation, from software audit to post-release support. Their experts carefully audit the existing software to identify structural weaknesses, hidden tech debt, and compliance issues before crafting a phased, risk-controlled plan tailored to the goals of each customer.

Corsac team integrates into your CI/CD pipeline and makes every change documented and reversible to minimize downtime. Their process prioritizes business continuity and includes knowledge transfer and post-release support so clients can independently maintain modernized systems over the long term.

Intellias

Intellias is a global technology partner with more than two decades of experience in risk-controlled legacy software modernization. The company combines industry expertise and modern technologies to develop custom solutions for businesses in finance, retail, high tech, and more.

Intellias team modernizes legacy systems through replatforming, refactoring, and cloud migration. Their focus is on performance, security, and system stability throughout the process. Intellias applies phased releases and parallel environments to update legacy systems without disrupting business daily operations. This approach helps organizations reduce technical debt and keep systems reliable during transformation.

Devox Software

Devox is an outcome-driven software development company that uses a modular, low-risk modernization approach with minimal downtime. Their focus is AI-driven approach to system modernization to rebuild outdated products into brilliant future-ready ones.

Devox team starts with detailed diagnostics of a product to understand the weaknesses, security gaps, and scalability limitations to draft a phased modernization plan tied to measurable outcomes from both technical and business perspectives. Beyond code refinement, Devox experts shape your entire software lifecycle and fuel enterprise productivity, which makes them an especially good choice for SMEs and large enterprises.

RadixWEB

RadixWEB blends 25 years of expertise in delivering digital intelligence through AI, cloud, and Data. Instead of long, disruptive programs, the team focuses on early results that can be measured and validated as the transformation progresses. Each step is planned to modernize your legacy system while your critical business processes remain untouched.

RadixWEB relies on cloud-native and automation-driven delivery practices, with strong attention to user experience, so modernized systems remain reliable, efficient, and easier to work with over time. The company is trusted by 3,000 customers in over 20 sectors, including EdTech, Fintech, Healthcare, Insurtech, and more.

Innowise

Innowise is one of the leading legacy service update agencies with an extensive team of professionals and a strong track record in risk-controlled legacy system modernization. Since its founding in 2007, the company has grown to over 2,500 engineers and over 1600 legacy systems modernization services under its belt.

Innowise helps businesses, from startups to mature corporations, reimagine their IT infrastructure with reduced transformational risks. Innowise team guides clients in consulting, custom development, modernization, and post-launch support of modernized systems.

Wrapping up, legacy software modernization is no longer a matter of if, but when. As systems age, the risks of doing nothing quickly outweigh the risks of transformation itself. Each company featured in this list applies a risk-controlled approach to legacy system transformation, using phased delivery, thorough audits, and business-continuity-first practices to ensure stability throughout the process.

Read more:
5 Best Providers of Risk-Controlled Legacy System Transformation Services

Blue-blooded fund manager Schroders is set to be sold to American rival Nuveen in a £9.9bn deal that will end more than two centuries of independence and deliver another setback to the London Stock Exchange.

Nuveen, part of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), has agreed to acquire Schroders for 612p per share – a 34 per cent premium to the firm’s closing price of 456p. The transaction will create one of the world’s largest asset managers, overseeing around $2.5tn (£1.8tn) in assets.

The deal marks a historic turning point for Schroders, founded in 1804 by John Henry Schroder. The Schroder family still controls roughly 44 per cent of the company and is expected to receive at least £4bn from the sale. Family members Leonie Schroder and Claire Fitzalan Howard currently sit on the board.

Schroders’ chairman, Dame Elizabeth Corley, said London would “remain at the heart of this enlarged business” as the combined group’s non-US headquarters, despite the firm’s planned departure from public markets.

Executives said there were no plans for “material reductions” in headcount and that both Schroders and Nuveen would continue to operate as standalone brands following completion, which is expected by year-end.

Richard Oldfield, Schroders’ chief executive since November 2024, described the deal as a strategic response to industry pressures. “In a competitive landscape where scale can help deliver benefits, Nuveen is a partner that shares our values and respects the culture we have built,” he said.

William Huffman, chief executive of Nuveen, said the transaction would “unlock new growth opportunities for wealth and institutional investors” by broadening the firm’s global footprint.

Schroders has long been a fixture of the FTSE 100, but its growth has stalled amid structural changes in the asset management industry. Its share price fell to a decade low of 302p last April as investors shifted towards cheaper passive funds rather than paying higher fees for active stock-picking strategies.

The firm has also struggled to compete with US giants such as BlackRock and Blackstone, which have aggressively expanded into higher-margin alternatives such as private credit.

Although Schroders has pursued acquisitions in private markets, it has failed to translate those investments into sustained shareholder returns. Under Oldfield, the company embarked on a cost-cutting programme targeting £150m in savings.

Schroders’ departure from the London market adds to a growing list of high-profile exits from the UK exchange, intensifying concerns over the City’s ability to retain and attract major listed firms.

Nuveen said that any future relisting would likely involve a dual listing in London and another international exchange.

Headquartered in Chicago, Nuveen manages $1.4tn in assets, with a strong focus on the US market. The acquisition will be funded through cash and £3bn in debt.

For the City of London, the sale of one of its most historic financial institutions underscores the mounting consolidation pressures reshaping global asset management, and the shifting gravitational pull of capital markets towards the United States.

Read more:
City stalwart Schroders to be sold to US rival in £9.9bn deal

Ford Motor Company has been overtaken in global vehicle sales for the first time by Chinese electric car giant BYD, underscoring the dramatic shift under way in the global automotive industry.

Ford’s sales slipped 2 per cent last year to just under 4.4 million vehicles, while BYD sold 4.6 million, climbing to sixth place in the global rankings of car manufacturers.

The milestone is symbolic for an industry shaped by Ford’s legacy. Founder Henry Ford revolutionised mass car ownership with the Model T in the early 20th century. More than a century later, the company that defined industrial car production is being outpaced by a Chinese electric vehicle specialist.

BYD’s growth has been driven by its expanding portfolio of affordable, high-tech electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Among its best sellers are the SEAL U DM-i and the Dolphin electric city car, priced at under £19,000 in some markets.

In contrast, Ford has scaled back lower-cost small cars in Europe, phasing out the Ford Fiesta during the pandemic and pivoting towards higher-margin SUVs and crossovers. Its entry-level Puma now starts at more than £26,000.

Ford’s sales in the US rose, but the company has lost ground in Europe and China — markets where electric competition is intensifying.

Felipe Munoz, an independent automotive analyst, said the trend was widely anticipated. “BYD is still in expansion mode. Even if sales in China slow, it’s relying on exports to grow,” he said.

“Ford, meanwhile, remains heavily dependent on the US, where growth is modest, and has only a minor presence in China. Europe is also stagnant. This divergence is likely to continue.”

Western carmakers, including Ford, have struggled to navigate the electric vehicle transition. In December, Ford took a $19.5bn (£14bn) charge to scale back EV production, citing weaker-than-expected demand.

Munoz said Ford’s electrification strategy was complicated by its exposure to North America. “North American consumers are not enthusiastic about electric cars, and government support has been inconsistent,” he said.

Ford has attempted to regain a foothold in China through a joint venture with Jiangling Motors, launching an all-electric version of its Bronco SUV. However, its Chinese market share has fallen from nearly 5 per cent a decade ago to less than 2 per cent today.

“Let’s see how the Bronco Electric performs,” Munoz said. “But so far, nothing significant has changed.”

Despite global challenges, Ford remains Britain’s third-largest car brand. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, it sold about 119,000 vehicles in the UK in 2025, representing a 5.9 per cent market share, an 8 per cent increase on the previous year.

BYD, while still smaller in the UK, is growing rapidly. It sold around 51,400 cars last year, achieving a 2.5 per cent market share, but with sales rising almost sixfold.

At the top of the global league table, Toyota retained its crown for the sixth consecutive year with sales of 11.3 million vehicles.

For Ford and other Western manufacturers, BYD’s ascent signals more than just a ranking shift, it reflects a deeper rebalancing of power in an industry increasingly defined by electrification, cost efficiency and Chinese technological ambition.

Read more:
Ford overtaken by BYD as China reshapes global car industry