Ask a 22-year-old and a 70-year-old in the UK today whether they use digital tools to manage their money, and the answer is increasingly the same: yes. Ask them whether they feel confident doing so, and you get two very different answers.

Financial empowerment is the term we use to refer to the knowledge, skills, tools and opportunities that allow an individual to take control of their financial life and improve their financial wellbeing over time.

Britain increasingly banks, budgets and borrows online — a shift made possible at scale by advances in digital technology and the data and analytics behind it. But how confident people feel doing it is the real story of financial empowerment in Britain right now, and it offers valuable insight for policymakers and industry alike.

Different lives, shared financial ambitions

For a decade, Lloyds Banking Group’s Consumer Digital Index has tracked how people across the UK engage with digital technology and the confidence they have in doing so. Its analysis shows that more than 75 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds have used artificial intelligence (AI) for personal finance in the past year — the highest adoption of any generation. Yet they’re also the least confident using the tools they’ve adopted: just 64 percent of 18- to 24-year-old digital tool users feel confident using them, rising steadily to 85 percent among 65- to 74-year-olds.

Britain increasingly banks, budgets and borrows online — a shift made possible at scale by advances in digital technology and the data and analytics behind it.

Look across the UK and the picture shifts again. According to the index, London is the UK’s AI finance capital — 49 percent of digitally engaged respondents use it weekly, reporting the nation’s highest average savings of £562 after following AI-powered recommendations.^* Yet Londoners who use digital tools feel less confident doing so than anyone else in the country. Wales leads the UK on financial engagement and knowledge — how actively people manage their finances and how well they understand them — with the highest proportion nationally of those surveyed saying digital tools have helped them grow their pensions and investments. Yorkshire and the Humber leads on digital budgeting, and Northern Ireland shows some of the lowest adoption alongside some of the strongest outcomes among those who do engage.^** How people use digital tools to manage their money across the UK is as varied as the lives, places and ambitions behind it.

These insights insist that financial empowerment should be a national priority. While people across different generations and in different places are engaging with digital money tools differently, the ambition is the same — to have confidence, capability and control over their financial future.

It can’t be enabled in the same ways to everyone. A 20-year-old in Croydon, a 45-year-old in Leeds juggling debt and family costs, and a 70-year-old in Cardiff drawing down a pension will need different things to feel confident in managing their money online.

While people across different generations and in different places are engaging with digital money tools differently, the ambition is the same — to have confidence, capability and control over their financial future.

But strip away the age and the postcode, and what people want is remarkably consistent: the confidence to decide, the capability to act, and the control to plan ahead without being derailed by the next bill.

That’s the common connection between a Gen Z Londoner testing an AI budgeting tool and a Boomer in Edinburgh checking her pension pot on an app before bed.

Financial access is only the starting point

The UK has made big steps toward building digital access — nearly nine in ten digital tool users across the UK (88 percent) now manage their money online weekly. That’s a real achievement, but access was never the finish line and cannot be taken for granted.

A second goal is to turn that access into outcomes, in ways that reflect how differently people actually experience money. That means building financial education into schools and workplaces earlier and closing the trust gap around AI-generated advice for the younger users adopting it fastest. Places with the least developed financial habits should be given support designed for their circumstances, not advice scaled down from somewhere else.

As the UK’s largest digital bank, with around 22 million customers now managing their money through our apps, we have as much reason as anyone to get this right — and a role to play in doing it. Our ambition is to make finance simpler, smarter and more connected for every moment that matters, which is why we’re using AI, data and digital tools in practical, purposeful ways to help customers make better financial decisions and protect themselves from harm. By using our reach, technology and connectivity, we can help more people and businesses build stronger financial futures and realise their ambitions.

Financial empowerment is a national economic opportunity

The size of the prize is substantial. Independent research commissioned by Lloyds Banking Group and led by the University of Nottingham puts the value of turning digital access into financial confidence at up to £100 billion for the UK economy over the next decade — roughly £3,500 per household.

Our ambition is to make finance simpler, smarter and more connected for every moment that matters, which is why we’re using AI, data and digital tools in practical, purposeful ways.

Confidence changes what people do with their money. Instead of just getting through the week, they start to plan, adapt and invest in what comes next. Multiply that across millions of households, and the effect stops being personal and starts being national.

Digital access got the UK this far. Confidence, capability and control are what will get it the rest of the way — and building them should be a national priority.

---

Notes:

^*Savings figures are self-reported estimates and are not verified against transactional data. They should be interpreted as perceived impacts rather than guaranteed outcomes.

^**The Northern Ireland outcome findings are based on a small sample, n<100, and should be interpreted as indicative rather than statistically representative of the wider population.

As Europe’s energy ministers meet in Brussels this week, they are weighing legitimate concerns around energy security, affordability, and the pressures facing businesses and households.

The European Commission’s proposal to delay selected EU Methane Regulation requirements for fossil-fuel importers is now moving quickly through the legislative process. Ministers have an opportunity to keep any adjustment tightly focused, while preserving the policy stability that companies and investors need to plan, invest and manage risk over the long term.

Investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

For investors, the question is not whether implementation should be practical. It should. The question is whether a response to current pressures becomes a wider change to a framework that companies have already begun to implement.

Sixty investors, representing over €9.5 trillion in assets under management, have called for the EU Methane Regulation to be maintained and implemented as adopted. That statement pre-dated the Commission’s proposed one-year delay. Its central concern, however, is more relevant now: investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

The regulation was designed with phased implementation. It gave companies, importers and national authorities time to prepare for stronger measurement, reporting and verification of methane emissions. It has helped bring methane from the margins into boardroom discussions, where it belongs.

Why methane matters to investors

For investors, methane performance can offer a useful view of how a company is run. It is an indicator of operational discipline, process safety and the quality of management oversight. By setting requirements for measurement, reporting and verification, the regulation can also improve the availability, consistency and reliability of methane data. That gives investors a stronger basis to compare companies and assess whether they are managing risks that could affect long-term value. Maintaining the regulation’s core provisions and avoiding any further delay would protect the progress already under way.

The EU’s position as a major oil and gas importer gives the Methane Regulation particular weight. Clear import requirements can improve the quality and comparability of emissions information across global supply chains. They can help create a more level playing field for companies supplying the European market, rather than allowing weak data or weaker controls to become a commercial advantage.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three.

This matters for competitiveness as well as climate-related financial risk. Energy affordability is a legitimate concern, particularly for businesses and households facing continued market volatility. But well-designed, practical rules can reward operational excellence, support informed investment decisions and give companies a clearer basis on which to plan, while implementation can be managed in ways that preserve market flexibility and limit unnecessary costs for consumers.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three. A three-year postponement, however, would not serve institutional investors, companies or Europe’s competitiveness.

Methane is often treated as a narrow technical issue. It is not. Reducing emissions from oil and gas operations is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways to limit near-term warming. For companies, stronger measurement and reporting can also identify avoidable losses, improve operational performance and strengthen confidence among lenders and investors.

Companies and investors have already begun to respond to the direction set by the impending regulation. Investors are looking more closely at the quality of companies’ emissions data and the systems behind it. A predictable regulatory framework supports that work. Repeated changes to the timetable would do the opposite: they would make it harder to judge preparedness, compare performance and distinguish between companies that are acting now and those that are waiting for the rules to move again.

A longer delay would not remove the work needed to implement the regulation. It would postpone it, weaken incentives for companies and suppliers to prepare, and leave investors with less visibility over how methane-related risk will be managed. It could also disadvantage businesses that have already invested in stronger measurement and reporting, while slowing the development of the market for independent verification services needed to support credible implementation. When the requirements eventually return, the adjustment may be sharper and more costly. That uncertainty carries a cost for companies, investors and the wider market.

Practical implementation, not prolonged delay

The practical challenges facing importers are real and should be addressed through consistent implementation. This includes clear guidance from national authorities, practical ways to link relevant methane data to imported fuels, and clear standards for countries outside the EU whose methane rules are recognized as comparable to EU requirements. This approach would preserve market flexibility and help limit unnecessary costs, without weakening the regulation’s purpose.

If a one-year adjustment is judged necessary, ministers should keep it tightly defined, with a clear end date and no reopening of the regulation’s core provisions. They should use the period to provide the guidance that companies, importers and national authorities need to implement the rules consistently.

The choice facing ministers is not whether Europe should address methane emissions, but whether it does so through a stable framework that rewards preparedness and investment. A limited adjustment may be manageable. A prolonged delay risks creating uncertainty, slowing preparation and leaving Europe less competitive.

Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of all IIGCC members.

---

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).
• The advertisement relates to EU methane and energy policy and advocates for maintaining the core provisions of the EU Methane Regulation, limiting any implementation delay and preserving a stable regulatory framework for companies and investors.

More information here.