The conversation around colleague safety in retail has shifted significantly. What was once considered a largely operational issue, centered on loss prevention teams and in-store security, is now firmly a board-level, cross-functional priority. John Seddon of Peoplesafe and Liz Jewitt-Cross, a veteran HR leader, recently discussed this evolution, highlighting a simple but uncomfortable truth: you cannot protect people if you do not fully understand what they are experiencing.
Retail has historically approached safety through a physical lens. CCTV, deterrence measures, and more recently body-worn cameras have all played a role in protecting colleagues from theft and in-store incidents. But that model is no longer sufficient.
“It used to be about managing what happens on the shop floor,” Seddon says. “Now it is about how someone feels throughout their entire working experience, including getting to work, leaving work, and whether they feel they can speak up when something happens.”
Risk Moves Beyond the Shop Floor
Retail remains one of the largest employers in the UK, with millions working across stores, support offices, and the wider supply chain. That scale brings responsibility. Jewitt-Cross points to a combination of factors driving change: higher expectations from employees, more visible incidents of abuse, pressure on public services, and rapidly advancing technology.
“We are seeing a combination of factors coming together,” she explains. “All of that is forcing organisations to think more holistically about safety.”
Related: Arvato Expands Its Global Logistics Network
It is often assumed that the highest risk moments in retail are the obvious ones. Opening up a store, closing late at night, or managing lone working environments. While these remain important, the real areas of exposure are now broader and less visible.
One of the biggest shifts is what happens beyond the store environment.
“We have invested heavily in making stores safer,” Seddon says. “But the risk has not disappeared. In many cases, it has moved. That could be someone being followed outside, situations escalating after work, or incidents happening during the commute.”
This extension of risk raises difficult questions for employers. Where does duty of care begin and end? How far should organizations go in supporting employees outside of their immediate working environment?
Jewitt-Cross highlights another evolving pressure point: the unintended consequences of operational change.
“As an industry, we are constantly innovating to improve efficiency and reduce cost,” she says. “But sometimes those changes create friction in the customer journey. And when customers are already frustrated, that interaction with a colleague can quickly escalate.”
Related: Ben & Jerry’s foundation to shut down
This creates a difficult dynamic for leadership teams. When efficiency metrics drive decisions, the human cost often remains hidden until it manifests as turnover or incidents. The challenge lies in recognizing that streamlined operations can inadvertently expose staff to higher volatility.
The Gap Between Perception and Reality
There is also the continued challenge of lone working, which remains more widespread than many organizations acknowledge. Reduced headcounts, longer trading hours, and cost pressures have all contributed to a reality where many colleagues are working in more exposed environments than before.
Overlay all of this with a less tolerant social climate and reduced police responsiveness, and the risk profile becomes significantly more complex.
If there is one consistent thread running through the discussion, it is that most organizations do not have a clear picture of what their people are experiencing day to day. Not because they are not interested, but because the systems required to surface that reality are often not in place.
“The absence of reporting does not mean the absence of risk,” Seddon says plainly.
