Lessons from 2025: How retailers can avoid reputational pitfalls in 2026

2025 was a challenging year for retail reputation, with increasing scrutiny around product safety, environmental claims, ethical labour standards, and wider workforce‑related governance issues. These pressures showed how quickly reputational concerns can turn into legal, financial, and operational impacts. This article highlights key learnings from each of these four core risk areas to support retailers in strengthening their resilience for the year ahead.

Product safety

A November 2025 investigation by Which? highlighted how widespread product-safety failures have become on major online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay and AliExpress. Nearly 800 items for sale closely matched products already flagged as dangerous by the UK's Office for Product Safety and Standards, with 98% posing a "serious" or "high" risk to consumers. Which? further tested 15 products from categories of electrical products and children's toys, and found that all the products failed safety checks, with issues ranging from faulty wiring, internal faults, missing thermal production and counterfeit plugs.

Such instances of product safety failures pose a significant issue for retailers, who risk being blamed if a product supplied by them causes injury, illness or death. Furthermore, product safety has become an increasingly high-profile government issue, particularly on online marketplaces following the adoption of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act in July 2025, which enables the Secretary of State to impose product safety requirements on online marketplaces through secondary legislation. 

Key learning:

Retailers must strengthen product vetting, third‑party supplier assurance and adopt proactive checks and maintain evidence that all products meet safety requirements before they reach consumers.

Green claims

In December 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste had made misleading green claims in their advertising (by suggesting that their clothes were "sustainable" without sufficient evidence). This is the latest step in a growing focus on green claims, which is only going to escalate in 2026.

Unsubstantiated green claims pose significant financial risks to retailers. A Which? study of 8,800 products found that 62% of green claims reviewed breached the Green Claims Code, and were therefore misleading. This is significant as, since 6 April 2025, the CMA can fine retailers making misleading green claims up to 10% of annual group turnover. Fines could run into the millions of pounds even for mid-sized retailers, and fines are increasingly likely as "greenwashing" remains a priority for regulators.

As the Superdry/Nike/Lacoste story demonstrates, stories of greenwashing and environmental claims can be front-page news, especially when well-known brands are involved. Consumers are more aware than ever of the environmental impact of the products they buy, and negative press around green claims arising from regulatory enforcement can result in lost consumer confidence.

Key learning:

Meaningful compliance with the Green Claims Code and the supplementary guidance to the Green Claims Code (which has been recently published) must therefore be a priority for retailers in 2026. Green claims must be clear, accurate, and supported by substantial evidence.   Retailers need clear internal sign‑off processes to ensure all environmental messaging is verifiable and withstands regulatory and media scrutiny.

Ethical labour

In 2025, a UK parliamentary investigation confirmed that goods linked to forced labour were still entering UK retail supply chains, despite retailers’ legal duties under the Modern Slavery Act. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found evidence that products part‑produced with forced labour were being sold to UK consumers which is a direct breach of the government’s stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour anywhere in its supply chain.

Although the inquiry did not publicly name specific retailers, it highlighted systemic weaknesses in UK retail supply‑chain oversight. In sectors such as apparel and consumer goods, traffickers and exploitative labour networks were found to be operating within second and third tier suppliers supplying UK high‑street brands. The findings created a wave of reputational pressure for UK retailers, prompting media coverage and scrutiny of whether modern slavery statements were meaningful or merely procedural. The Home Office later tightened its guidance, raising expectations for the completeness and transparency of modern slavery reporting. Further legislative reform in this area is in contemplation.

Key learning:

UK retailers cannot rely on first‑tier audits alone. The 2025 inquiry made clear that deeper due diligence, stronger supplier mapping, and more robust worker engagement mechanisms are essential to avoid hidden exploitation and the reputational fallout that follows.

HR

A BBC Panorama investigation has revealed that Evri’s pay per parcel model can leave couriers earning below the UK minimum wage once fuel, vehicle costs, and unpaid working time are included. An undercover reporter earned only £13.80 for a three hour shift delivering 133 parcels, which is significantly below the legal hourly rate and highlights the precarious nature of gig based delivery work.  Couriers also reported reduced pay rates and mislabelled parcels that lowered earnings even further and raised questions about compliance and fairness. 

Piece‑rate pay structures create a risk of unintentional breaches of minimum‑wage regulations and can contribute to unsafe working conditions if staff are pressured to meet unrealistic volumes.

Key learning:

Retailers must ensure pay models, including piece rate pay structures meet statutory thresholds and should consider carrying out audits of working conditions.

Crisis management

Trust remains one of the most valuable assets a business holds, and it is often tested during periods of unexpected crisis. Effective crisis management begins long before any issue becomes public. Organisations that handled crises well in 2025 were those who were prepared with robust governance structures, clear accountability, and early risk‑mapping already in place. Trust during a crisis depends on clarity, transparency, and timeliness: clear governance identifies the right decision‑makers, transparent communication reassures stakeholders, and timely actions demonstrate professionalism. While no organisation can prevent every crisis, structured planning and robust governance significantly reduce reputational risk and signal capability, credibility, and integrity.