Retail Reduced – August 2025

After cautious trials, the idea of introducing electronic shelf labels (ESLs) into stores is beginning to gain traction. Co-op confirmed in 2025 that all 2,400 of its stores will be equipped with ESLs by 2026 while discount retailer Company Shop has already rolled out ESLs across its UK stores.

The headline benefit of ESLs is labour efficiency. Price updates that could otherwise take staff hours can be pushed to shelves faster, which can be a significant saving at a time of rising staffing costs and tight margins. ESLs may also assist retailers with adapting to regulatory shifts; with new rules on unit pricing targeted for introduction on 1 October 2025, ESLs could offer a way for retailers to adjust unit measures quickly by electronic means compared to having staff members manually sort through shelves and update labels.

ESLs also carry strategic weight, with Co-op’s head of operations seeing ESLs as offering multiple operational benefits: ‘the electronic labels have the potential to enhance product information and transparency, avoid paper waste and make everyday tasks like picking online orders easier’. The technology could streamline both consumer-facing information and back-of-house processes, reducing retailers’ reliance on paper-based systems while improving efficiency for staff fulfilling digital orders.

The benefits of ESL are promising: fewer paper labels, less plastic backing and reduced printing costs. However, the pathway to adoption may not be equally accessible for all retailers. While supermarket giants like Co-op can draw upon their sizeable pool of resources to invest in ESLs, the initial capital outlay, ongoing connectivity costs and technical support requirements could prove prohibitive for smaller grocers operating with less upfront capital to draw upon. This may create a potential divide where larger chains gain operational advantages through efficiencies introduced by ESL systems while smaller competitors remain tied to manual, paper-based systems.

As ESL adoption accelerates among major retailers, the technology may be poised to become a new operational standard. The combination of labour savings and environmental advantages could turn what started as cautious trials into a total transformation of how retailers manage their shelves.

Barcodes revolutionised retail with their familiar black-and-white stripes in the late 70s and 80s. Today, those same stripes are facing their biggest challenger yet in the form of dynamic QR codes that could transform how consumers discover, understand and interact with products. Retailers are cluing into harnessing the full versatility offered by QR codes, with Tesco’s ongoing trial of next-generation QR codes on its products changing how consumers interact with goods at the point of decision.

QR codes enhanced by GS1 technology unlock layers of product information in place of a static barcode that takes up space. A scan can pull up sourcing details, nutritional information, allergy warnings, recycling instructions or recipe suggestions. For consumers who want to know more about what they are buying, this is a step change. Consumers no longer need to hunt for tiny text on the back of the pack, and for those with accessibility needs, information that can be read aloud or enlarged on a phone screen.

The benefits also extend beyond transparency. Tesco has already reported that QR codes allow it to monitor which products are nearing expiry, enabling more targeted markdowns and, in theory, reducing food waste. For the consumer, that could translate into more timely price cuts and fresher stock on shelves. The same technology can also give retailers more granular supply-chain visibility by ‘connecting supply chain operations with real-time consumer interactions‘.

But the promise comes with questions. Will customers embrace scanning codes at scale, or is there a risk of ‘QR fatigue’? How much information is too much before the experience becomes cluttered or overwhelming? Success will depend on execution. Done well, QR codes could improve product transparency in retail, reducing waste while empowering informed consumer choice. Done poorly, they risk becoming another digital hurdle that adds unnecessary complication to consumers’ in-store experience.

The returns crisis has long haunted UK fashion e-commerce, but in 2025 the conversation sharpened as ASOS drew headlines for its approach to accounts with larger numbers of returns. Consumers reported that the online giant was shutting down the accounts of those that it considered to be ‘serial returners’. As reports picked up traction, ASOS stated that the accounts ‘of a small group of customers’ had been closed following ‘shopping activity (that) has consistently fallen outside our fair use policy’.

A key point of friction could be that what consumers see as practical shopping, retailers increasingly view as problematic behaviour. One such consumer practice drawing concern from retailers is ‘bracketing’ where consumers order the same product in multiple sizes or colours with plans to only retain one of such product. While this makes perfect sense to shoppers who may have to navigate inconsistent sizing between retailers and prefer the convenience of home try-ons, for retailers it means stock leaving warehouses only to return days or weeks later, creating logistical loops for retailers to sort.

Technology companies are offering innovative solutions to the returns standoff between consumers and retailers. Fit-tech firms like True Fit use AI to predict which size well work best for individual shoppers, with complicated size-charts being left in the dust. For retailers grappling with mounting returns costs, such solutions may represent a potential path towards more sustainable e-commerce operations.

The ASOS controversy has exposed growing tension in online fashion retail, where consumer convenience increasingly clashes with business sustainability. While fit-tech solutions are emerging, the fundamental challenge remains balancing consumer satisfaction with operational viability. As return rates continue to pressure margins, retailers may need to choose between maintaining liberal policies or implementing stricter measures that protect profitability.