The high-profile statements from Donald Trump, who on Tuesday 23 September at the UN General Assembly dismissed climate change as a “hoax” and renewable energy as a “scam”, represent more than a simple policy disagreement. The position taken by US leadership marks the leading edge of a growing, politically charged scepticism that is now being openly adopted by the UK right.

We’ve seen this before. The political right is dismissing the principles of social value and policies like the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as ‘woke’ red tape and a waste of taxpayer money.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that trying to resolve this ideological stalemate by debating climate science or the ethics of social value is a dead end. The real opportunity lies in reframing the conversation and finding common ground.

To do that, we need to understand what genuinely resonates with the British right – a deep-rooted nostalgia for a ‘perfect Britain’. A country that is financially strong, economically independent and built on close-knit communities, free from unnecessary bureaucracy.

This vision isn’t incompatible with progressive goals. In fact, it’s the key to tackling the stand-off. By reframing social value around outcomes that resonate across political lines – pride of place, economic resilience and community strength – we can move the conversation from abstract global priorities to tangible local value.

And what is more local, more personal and more politically unifying than the home?

The built environment offers a natural meeting place (pun intended) for these opposing perspectives. The key takeaway from our recent report, The Impact of Home, is a simple truth: people are happier, healthier and more engaged when they live in good homes and vibrant places. They become better equipped to contribute both communally and economically.

Sustainable communities are often framed as a moral or environmental priority, but they also offer clear economic and practical benefits. What some dismiss as ‘woke’ policy, including green infrastructure, energy efficiency and investment in place, is actually a practical strategy for economic resilience. You don’t need to believe in climate change to value clean air, safe streets and thriving towns. These are the building blocks of a ‘perfect Britain’. Such policies deliver real returns in better health, lower energy costs, stronger local economies and a renewed sense of pride in place. Good homes and well-designed neighbourhoods are not just socially valuable. They are economically essential.

Conversely, development goals such as affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth and industry, innovation and infrastructure are all more likely to resonate with the right. They speak of a prosperity that we should all be aiming towards. Resilient, productive and reliable are all the things the right wants to see from our industries and our jobs.

The challenge is aligning the rhetoric. The vision of the SDGs is global in scale but for this audience we need to talk local, bringing the messaging for a more equal society back to a neighbourhood level.

To increase the appeal of social value to the political right, we must shift the narrative. Instead of simply disagreeing with the idea that net zero policies and strategies like the SDGs are bureaucratic messes, we must argue that investing in social value through the built environment is about cultivating stronger, self-reliant communities which help create a stable and thriving British economy – the very core of conservative values.

Sustainable, community-focused placemaking can be both a moral obligation and a sensible economic strategy. Whether your motivation is ethical, financial or somewhere in between, what matters is that the cause is supported.

I (Nikki Davies, Meeting Place CEO) will be attending the ISV Conference 2025 this month. The conference theme directly challenges a narrow financial view, focusing on “value beyond profit”. But this begs a pragmatic question: can real, impactful change happen if we ignore that for some political parties, profit is a defining incentive?

Our goal is not to align on personal motivation for supporting social value, but to find the crucial middle ground that opens the gateway for the right. Social value and long-term profit are not mutually exclusive. For real and vast change to happen, we must begin speaking the language of our political opposites. The true solution lies in pragmatic collaboration over moral alignment.