Why housing costs belong in Belgium's Mobility Budget

The debate around Belgium's mobility budget keeps circling back to one question: do housing costs belong in a system that is fundamentally about mobility?

Maybe we're just asking the wrong question.

Housing costs are already part of Belgium's mobility budget under Pillar 2. And the current energy crisis makes the case for keeping them there stronger than ever. When the International Energy Agency recommends working from home as one of ten urgent measures to address the worst energy crisis in decades, Belgium already has a fiscal tool that supports exactly that. It's called the mobility budget, and it's been here all along.

What did the IEA actually recommend?

Last week, the International Energy Agency published a list of ten urgent measures to ease pressure on global energy markets. First on the list for employers: enable people to work from home.

The context is anything but theoretical. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, normally the route for around 20% of global oil transport. European gas prices rose by 65%. Belgian gas reserves are below 30%. IEA director Fatih Birol described the situation as more severe than both the 1970s energy crisis and the post-Ukraine invasion shock.

Against that backdrop, one recommendation stands out for its simplicity. Working from home up to three days a week reduces national fuel consumption by 2 to 6 percent. No government investment required. No fuel tax cuts needed.

Belgium's Mobility Budget already has the answer

Working from home is already a fiscally supported choice in Belgium. Through the mobility budget, employees can trade in their company car for a budget they allocate to sustainable alternatives, including a contribution to housing costs for those who live close to work or work from home structurally.

Three out of four employees with a mobility budget already spend part of it on housing costs. Around one in five uses part of their budget on a vehicle that runs without fossil fuels.

For larger companies, the mobility budget becomes mandatory from 2027. But the energy crisis doesn't follow that calendar.

Why is housing a mobility question?

Critics have a point: housing is not the same as transport. But mobility policy was never just about which vehicle someone drives. It's about how many kilometres someone covers each day, and why.

Someone who lives closer to work commutes less. Someone who works from home more, too. The outcome is identical: less fuel, fewer traffic jams, less CO₂.

Whether that reduction comes from living near the office or working remotely doesn't change the effect. The three pillars of the mobility budget were designed with exactly this flexibility in mind.

The real question is about outcomes, not categories

The IEA is asking employers to enable remote work. Not next year. Now.

Those who live closer to work and commute less achieve the same result. The energy crisis makes no distinction.

Maybe the answer is simpler than it looks. Not: do housing costs belong in a mobility budget? But: which policy gets people using less fuel, covering fewer kilometres, and emitting less CO₂?

If housing costs do that, and the data shows they do, the answer becomes obvious on its own.

The IEA is calling for remote work. Belgian tax law already supports it. The crisis isn't waiting for consensus.

By Nick Bols, CCO at Mbrella