Get in touch
← All ideas
Decision Frameworks

Zero-Based Budgeting Isn't Austerity — It's the Discipline of Reinvestment

Britain's productivity problem is, at root, a capital-allocation problem. This is what a properly run zero-based exercise actually exposes — and the far more common way of running it that makes the problem worse.

Zero-based budgeting has an image problem. Say the words in a leadership meeting and most people hear the same thing: a cost cull dressed up in method, a spreadsheet exercise that ends with headcount out of the door and a consultant’s invoice in the drawer. It is remembered as the discipline of the downturn — the thing you reach for when margins are under pressure and the board wants a number by Friday.

That reputation is not entirely undeserved, because that is often how it is run. But it obscures something more useful. The most interesting failure a zero-based exercise can expose is not that an organisation is overspending. It is that an organisation is under-investing — quietly starving the very capabilities its core mission depends on, while the money that should have funded them leaks away somewhere less visible. Run properly, ZBB is less a cost-cutting tool than a reinvestment discipline. It is the mechanism that makes the difference between what a business needs to fund and what it actually funds impossible to ignore.

To see why that matters, it helps to start not with a single company but with an entire economy that has spent fifteen years demonstrating the problem at scale.

The most expensive puzzle in the British economy

Before the financial crisis, UK labour productivity — output per hour worked — grew at roughly 1.9% a year. It was unremarkable, dependable, and it compounded. Since the crisis it has effectively stalled, averaging around 0.4% a year between 2008 and 2023 — a fall of roughly three-quarters in the growth rate, or a slowdown of about 1.5 percentage points a year across the whole economy. This is not a cyclical dip that a recovery has since erased. It is the most sustained break in the UK’s productivity trend in over a century, and economists have spent the intervening years calling it, without much exaggeration, “the key economic issue of our age.”

The cost of that stall compounds exactly as the pre-crisis growth once did, only in reverse. The Office for Budget Responsibility found output per hour was already around 15% below its pre-crisis trend by 2012. By late 2023, analysis from the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance put UK productivity roughly 24% below where the old trajectory would have carried it — fifteen years of the gap widening rather than closing. Internationally, the UK is a laggard rather than a member of the pack: on a value-added-per-hour basis in 2019, the United States was around 28% more productive, Germany 14%, and France 13%.

The human cost is not abstract. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, had pre-crisis pay growth continued, the typical worker would be about £11,000 a year better off — a 37% “lost wages” gap. The fiscal cost is not abstract either: the OBR reckons that just half a percentage point on annual productivity growth, from 1.0% to 1.5%, would be worth around £40bn a year in lower government borrowing. Productivity is the quiet variable behind almost every argument about wages, public services and living standards. It has been broken for a decade and a half, and the country has been paying for it the whole time.

So what broke it? Here is where the story becomes directly relevant to how any single organisation decides where its money goes.

Under-investment is a symptom, not an explanation

The most consistent finding in the research is that around half of the UK’s productivity slowdown can be traced to chronic under-investment in capital and skills. British workers simply have less to work with. The Productivity Institute’s 2025 analysis of the UK’s “capital gap” found that a UK worker has roughly a third less capital at their disposal than a worker in a higher-productivity peer economy — about £128 of capital per hour worked against a peer average nearer £190. In absolute terms the shortfall runs to around £2 trillion. The pattern is decades deep: UK gross fixed capital formation has averaged just under 18% of GDP since 1993, against roughly 22% in France and Germany and 21% in the United States, and the UK has had the lowest investment in the G7 in 24 of the last 30 years. Had it merely tracked the G7 average, the country would have seen something like £1.9 trillion more investment.

It is tempting to stop there and treat “under-investment” as the answer. It is not. Under-investment is a statement about where money did not go. It says nothing at all about where it did. And that second question is the one that turns a macroeconomic curiosity into a management problem, because money does not simply evaporate. At the level of a firm it obeys an identity as rigid as any in accounting:

Revenue ≈ capital investment + skills and training + operating costs + distributions to owners + tax + debt service + retained cash

If the investment line falls, the identity forces the difference to surface somewhere else on that list. The money did not disappear. It went to one of the other terms. So the honest diagnostic question is not “did we invest enough?” — everyone already knows the answer is no. It is: if not into capital and skills, then into what?

For the UK as a whole, the clearest answer is uncomfortable. A great deal of the money that did not go into the productive base went out of the firm, to shareholders. UK-listed companies have run a high-payout, low-reinvestment model for years: dividends have absorbed somewhere between 47% and 62% of profits in recent years, and firms added roughly £33bn of share buybacks over 2019–2024 compared with the previous five years. This is precisely the short-termism that the Kay Review of UK equity markets warned about back in 2012: capital cycled back to owners rather than forward into capability.

There are other destinations, and intellectual honesty requires naming them rather than forcing every pound into the story that flatters the argument. Some of the gap is structural — the UK economy is services-heavy and less capital-intensive by mix, and it carries high energy and property costs, so part of what looks like diverted cash is simply higher input prices and a different industrial shape. And the pension story, often assumed to have starved investment after 2008, is more equivocal than the folklore suggests: one study of FTSE 350 firms found deficit-repair pressure fell more heavily on dividends than on capital spending. The picture is not monocausal. But the throughline is clear enough: the money existed, and a model that reflexively prioritised distribution and habit over reinvestment sent it somewhere other than the capability base.

That is not a budgeting failure in the narrow sense. Nobody overspent. It is an allocation failure — a failure to ask, deliberately and with evidence, what the mission actually required and to fund that first. Which is exactly the failure zero-based budgeting is built to expose.

Why this is a zero-based question, not a cost question

The instinctive response to “we are under-invested” is to find more money, and the instinctive response to “we need to find money” is to cut costs. This is the trap, and it is worth being precise about why.

Conventional budgeting is incremental. It starts from last year’s numbers and argues at the margin: a little more here, a little less there, defend your line against the finance team’s red pen. Incremental budgeting is very good at preventing costs from growing quickly. It is almost completely blind to misallocation, because it never asks the foundational question. It assumes the base is legitimate and negotiates around the edges. If your base has quietly drifted so that must-have capabilities are underfunded while cash flows out to less essential places, incremental budgeting will protect that drift year after year, because the drift is in the base and the base is never re-examined.

Zero-based budgeting refuses the base. It rebuilds the budget from nothing against a single question — what does the core mission actually require? — and forces every pound to be justified from zero rather than inherited from last year. That is why it is the right instrument for an allocation problem. It is the only budgeting method whose central act is to reconstruct the requirement from first principles, which means it is the only one that can reveal a gap between what the mission needs and what the organisation has been funding out of habit.

The discipline usually organises that requirement into three tiers. Must — the capabilities without which the mission fails, including the ones that are legally or regulatorily non-negotiable. Should — the capabilities that materially improve how the mission is delivered. Could — the genuinely discretionary, the “nice to have,” the things funded because they might differentiate us or because they always have been. The value of the framework is not the labels. It is that it forces an explicit, defensible answer to the question incremental budgeting never asks: is this thing a Must, and can we prove it?

How a properly run exercise catches the reinvestment gap

Here is the mechanism, and it is more subtle than “find the waste.”

Zero-based budgeting does not operate on the dividend line. Whether a company returns cash to shareholders or reinvests it is a capital-allocation decision that sits above the budgeting exercise, in the boardroom and the treasury function. ZBB cannot and should not set payout policy. So how does a budgeting method catch a problem whose ultimate cause is that money left the building?

It catches it by rebuilding the requirement and exposing the gap. When you reconstruct the budget from zero, you are forced to ask, for every Must-have capability: what capital and what skills does delivering this to standard actually require? Not what we spent on it last year — what it genuinely needs. Training is justified, or not, on evidence of the value it adds to people and to core capability. Capital expenditure is justified as a Must for a core function, not carried forward because it was in the base. You end up with a bottom-up, mission-justified statement of what the organisation should be investing to do its job.

The diagnostic is the difference between that statement and reality. Wherever the mission-justified requirement for capital and skills exceeds what was actually funded, the under-investment stops being invisible. It becomes an explicit, evidenced line item: a Must-have that went unfunded. It is no longer a slow, silent starving of the capability base that nobody quite decided on and nobody owns. It is a decision, written down, with a number against it and a name beside it.

And that is the point at which a budgeting exercise reaches beyond its own remit. A rigorous zero-based build produces the one thing the business needs to challenge the allocation decision upstream: a defensible fact base. It lets the operating side of the house walk into the room and say, with evidence rather than assertion, “core mission requires £X of capital and training that we are not funding — and here is what we are doing with that money instead.” It does not make the capital-allocation decision. It makes the decision legible, and forces it to be made on purpose rather than by drift. In a national economy that has spent fifteen years distributing what it should have reinvested, the ability to make that trade-off explicit is not a small thing.

The trap: the exercise that makes everything worse

None of this is automatic, and this is the part that most accounts of zero-based budgeting skip. Run with the wrong objective, ZBB does not fix the reinvestment problem. It accelerates it.

Consider what happens when the exercise is framed, as it so often is, as “minimise this year’s spend.” Training and capital projects share two properties that make them fatally easy to cut: they are discretionary in the short term, and their payback is long. Zero out this year’s training budget and next quarter looks fine. Defer the capital project and the in-year number improves immediately. The damage is real but it is deferred, diffuse, and hard to attribute — which is to say it is invisible on exactly the timescale a cost-first exercise measures itself against. A ZBB run as a cost cull will therefore reach, almost inevitably, for the capital and skills investment first, because that is where the fastest in-year savings live. It will cut precisely the things the evidence says the country already under-provides, and it will call the result a success.

This is how a discipline meant to expose under-investment becomes a machine for producing more of it. The framework is the same; the objective function is inverted. And the tell is always the same: the exercise measures value as cost removed this year, rather than as contribution to core mission over time.

The only thing that separates the two versions is the test you apply. If the question is “what can we cut?”, training and capex lose, every time, because they are the softest targets on the page. If the question is “what does the core mission demonstrably require, and what is the evidence?”, then a Must-have capability’s training and capital are defended by that evidence rather than sacrificed for a quick number. The discipline works only when value to the mission, proven on data, is the criterion — and it fails, expensively, when it is not.

That is the empirical burden zero-based budgeting places on whoever runs it. You have to be able to show, with data, what value the training and the capability investment actually deliver. If you cannot — if the case for the core capabilities rests on conviction and organisational memory rather than evidence — then the exercise has no defensible basis on which to protect them, and they will be cut. Without that evidence base, zero-based budgeting is not a strategic discipline at all. It is austerity with a spreadsheet.

What good looks like

The difference between the two versions of ZBB is entirely a matter of how it is set up, and the distinctions are worth stating plainly.

The first is the objective. A useful exercise is framed as reallocation, not reduction — its success measure is whether the organisation is funding the right things, not whether it is spending less. Money freed from genuine Coulds is a source of funding for underfunded Musts, not a dividend to the P&L.

The second is the evidence standard. Every Must-have capability has to carry a data-based case for the value it delivers, because that case is the only thing that will protect it when the pressure to cut arrives. Building that evidence base — what a capability contributes, and what happens to the mission without it — is not overhead on the exercise. It is the exercise.

The third is the direction of travel on capital and skills. In an organisation that has been under-investing, a rigorous zero-based build should frequently conclude that some things need more funding, not less. An exercise that only ever cuts is not doing zero-based budgeting; it is doing cost reduction and borrowing the vocabulary. The willingness to come out the other side recommending increased investment in a proven core capability is the clearest sign the discipline is being applied honestly.

None of this is complicated, but all of it is easy to get wrong under pressure, which is why the framing decision — reduction or reallocation, conviction or evidence — matters more than the mechanics.

The discipline, not the cull

The UK’s productivity stagnation is the largest available demonstration of a simple point: the expensive failure is rarely spending too much. It is spending on the wrong things, and starving the right ones, while nobody quite decides to. That failure is invisible to incremental budgeting because it lives in the base, and it is made worse by cost-cutting because the right things are always the easiest to cut. It is visible, and correctable, only to a discipline that rebuilds the requirement from zero and insists that every pound justify itself against the mission on evidence.

That is what zero-based budgeting is for. Not the cull it is remembered as, but the reinvestment discipline it can be — the exercise that makes the difference between what a business needs to fund and what it actually funds impossible to look away from, and hands the organisation the evidence to do something about it.

The reputation is the opposite of the value. Most organisations do not lack analysis; they lack the discipline to make that analysis legible enough to act on. A zero-based exercise, run against the mission rather than the calendar, is one of the sharper ways we know to close that gap. At Duruedma, that is the version we think is worth the effort — the one that ends not with a smaller budget, but with a clearer decision.

Sources and further reading