First Message from ICSD

This ESG blog is for our members to share their ideas and experiences about ESG topics. It's a fantastic place for all of us to learn from each other. Each article should be around 700 words (Chinese or English). To submit an article, please email us at info@icsd-global.org All articles in this ESG blog represent the personal opinions of the authors and do not reflect the official stance or policies of ICSD. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the content.

The Price of Delivery Efficiency

The Price of Delivery Efficiency

---

Dilys Lam

Vice Chairman (Development), ICSD

The Price of Delivery Efficiency: Rethinking Britain's Last-Mile Logistics Model

Parcel theft in the UK has become a significant challenge for retailers, logistics operators and consumers. According to a 2025 Quadient survey, vulnerable doorstep deliveries are targeted by parcel thieves every seven seconds. An estimated £666.5 million worth of parcels was stolen over a twelve-month period, affecting approximately 4.83 million UK households. Affected consumers may feel less secure in their neighbourhoods and lose confidence in delivery services.

Only around one in every 353 incidents was reported to the police. This low reporting rate obscures the true scale and geographical distribution of parcel theft, making it more difficult for businesses and policymakers to identify patterns and target interventions. While often viewed as a security issue, parcel theft has broader implications for supply chain resilience. The costs extend beyond the direct loss of goods, highlighting broader issues relating to incentive structures, risk allocation and delivery infrastructure.

Delivery Efficiency and Incentive Structures 

In delivery service, operational performance is measured primarily through speed and completion rates. Unattended deliveries can become a rational response to commercial pressures, even where they increase theft risk. The Ofcom’s survey of UK logistics operators in Oct 2026 prompted common delivery issues including leaving parcels in an inappropriate location (28%), the delivery driver not knocking loudly enough (25%), and not being given sufficient time to answer the door (20%). Collectively, these findings suggest that operational speed can sometimes take priority over secure customer handover, increasing the risk of disputed or vulnerable deliveries.

Many delivery networks rely on self-employed couriers and contractor-based operating models, with compensation often linked to completed deliveries and route efficiency. This can encourage a focus on speedy delivery rather than delivery security, leaving parcels unattended and vulnerable to theft.  Parcel theft can generate avoidable environmental costs through additional journeys and replacement shipments. The consequences extend beyond logistics performance, affecting consumer confidence and experience, raising concern about the reliability of last-mile delivery services.

• 

Photo credit : My Parcel Locker 

Theft Risk and Cost Allocation

Under the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015, responsibility for goods generally remains with the retailer until they come into the possession of the consumer or an authorised recipient. When an unattended parcel is stolen, retailers are frequently required to provide a refund or replacement. Replacement deliveries generate additional transport activity, customer-service costs and administrative overheads. Retailers and logistics providers may also incur increased claims-handling, insurance and risk-management expenses. Some of these costs are ultimately absorbed within broader pricing structures, creating what might be described as an indirect "theft tax" borne collectively by consumers.  The parcel theft loss costs are distributed across businesses, workers and customers throughout the logistics ecosystem, raising question of fairness for those unaffected by the losses.

Infrastructure Responses: The InPost Case

Censuswide research indicates that thefts are heavily concentrated in dense urban areas where shared buildings lack secure parcel management facilities. Greater London alone accounted for 27% of reported apartment thefts. This is largely driven by unsecured communal hallways and building lobbies becoming exposed "piling zones" for courier deliveries.

Parcel lockers and out-of-home collection networks offer an alternative approach. They seek to reduce system-wide costs and risks through delivery consolidation and secure transfer points between couriers and consumers. Importantly, they align operational efficiency with security outcomes rather than forcing a trade-off between the two. Growing consumer acceptance for alternative options suggests that delivery preferences may also be evolving.

A leading example is InPost, the Polish logistics company that pioneered Automated Parcel Machines (APMs). Despite generating significantly stronger profitability in Poland than in the UK, the company has continued to invest heavily in British locker networks. By August 2026, InPost operates more than 16,000 APMs across the UK. As concerns over parcel security increase, secure collection points are becoming part of the mainstream delivery ecosystem.

The future growth of parcel locker networks may depend not only on infrastructure investment but also on customer behaviour. Delivery incentives, such as free locker delivery or preferential pricing, may encourage consumers to select options that improve overall network efficiency. For example, on 1 June 2026, The Very Group introduced free InPost Locker delivery on standard orders over £30. Rather than treating doorstep delivery as the default option, future delivery networks may increasingly reward choices that reduce system-wide costs and security risks.

Future Directions: From Parcel Lockers to Drone Delivery

Emerging drone technologies may further reshape the last-mile delivery landscape. The UK market is currently transitioning from isolated testing to tightly regulated commercial trials, with a government roadmap aiming for routine and integrated operations by 2027.

Drone delivery is often presented as a solution to last-mile inefficiencies. However, its ability to address the underlying causes of parcel theft remains uncertain. While drones may reduce delivery times and labour requirements, they do not eliminate the need for secure and accountable transfer points. Drone deployment in dense urban environments presents practical challenges relating to safety, airspace management, privacy and landing-site availability. For these reasons, drone networks may ultimately depend on designated collection points, smart lockers and supervised pickup locations that provide a reliable and secure handover between logistics providers and consumers.

Conclusion

Britain's parcel theft challenge is not simply a story about opportunistic criminals. It reflects the trade-offs embedded within a delivery model optimised for speed, convenience and cost efficiency. 

The visible losses are stolen parcels. The less visible losses are environmental costs to replace shipments, consumer anxiety and frustration, as well as system-wide inefficiencies that spread losses beyond those directly affected.  As such, parcel theft has evolved into a supply chain risk affecting retailers, logistics operators and consumers.

The central issue is not theft itself, but the allocation of risk within modern logistics networks. Britain's experience demonstrates that the long-term resilience of e-commerce will depend not only on technological innovation, but also on infrastructure, incentive design and the ability to balance efficiency, security and accountability.

(Date: 30 October 2026)

Rules Restaurant : A Living Heritage in Practice

Rules Restaurant : A Living Heritage in Practice

---

Dilys Lam

Vice Chairman (Development), ICSD

• 

Interior of Rules Restaurant, London. Paintings, drawings and caricatures reflecting the restaurant's heritage adorn the walls. Photo: © National Trust Images / Megan Taylor.

Rules Restaurant : A Living Heritage in Practice

What should be preserved when a historic place remains commercially successful?

The transfer of the historic premises of Rules Restaurant, London's oldest restaurant, to the National Trust in October 2026 provides a compelling example of how heritage stewardship can extend beyond the conservation of buildings. Founded in 1798, Rules continues to operate from its original Covent Garden location. Under the arrangement, ownership of the building and its historic collection has passed to the National Trust, while the restaurant business continues under a commercial tenancy.

The result is what the Trust describes as "living heritage" - a place where a historic structure, its collections and its original commercial function remain intertwined.

Beyond Adaptive Reuse

Heritage conservation often focuses on adaptive reuse whereby historic buildings are given new functions when their original purposes become obsolete. Rules presents a different challenge: preserving a building whose original use remains commercially active and culturally relevant.

Its significance extends beyond architecture and interiors. More than two centuries of restaurant operation have created traditions, stories and associations that are inseparable from the place itself. Visitor books, menus, photographs, stained glass, caricatures and other artefacts remain connected to the setting in which they acquired their historical meaning. The restaurant also retains links to generations of patrons, including writers, actors and public figures who have contributed to its place in London's cultural life.

The Rules case suggests that continuity of function can itself form part of a heritage asset's value. Where an established use remains viable, preserving both tangible and intangible heritage may be as important as preserving the building fabric.

Governance: Stewardship Beyond Ownership

The most distinctive feature of the Rules arrangement lies in its governance structure.

Private ownership can support effective conservation, but long-term stewardship may be vulnerable to changing ownership priorities and redevelopment pressure over time. The transfer to the National Trust places the property within an institution whose purpose is the long-term conservation of heritage assets.

At Rules, ownership of the historic premises is separated from the operation of the restaurant. This allows the business to continue trading while stewardship of the building and its collection is undertaken by a specialist conservation organisation. Rental income generated through the tenancy also provides an ongoing source of funding for conservation work.

The National Trust possesses experience in managing historic buildings and collections, supported by specialist conservation expertise and established governance processes. Such capabilities can support informed decision-making on maintenance, restoration, preservation priorities and long-term risk management.

At the same time, institutional ownership is not a guarantee of success. Conservation objectives and commercial requirements may not always align. Maintenance costs, operational needs and financial pressures can create competing priorities that require careful management. The long-term effectiveness of the arrangement will depend on how these interests are balanced over time.

The significance of the Rules case therefore lies not simply in who owns the property, but in the creation of a governance framework intended to support both heritage conservation and continued commercial use. It may reduce the risk that future ownership changes could expose the property to redevelopment pressure, helping to safeguard both the building and its historic character over the long term.

Social: Preserving Cultural Identity

The governance arrangement also helps protect the social value embedded within the property.

Rules has become part of London's cultural identity through its history and continued role as a place of hospitality. Dining within a historic environment adds a dimension that extends beyond architectural appreciation, allowing heritage and hospitality to reinforce one another. The restaurant's enduring appeal also reflects the importance of maintaining a high-quality dining experience in a living heritage.

The National Trust's stewardship may also strengthen public understanding of the property’s significance by placing it within a wider heritage context and ensuring that its stories remain accessible to future generations.

Conclusion

The transfer of Rules Restaurant's historic premises to the National Trust demonstrates how heritage conservation and commercial activity can coexist within a long-term stewardship framework.

By separating stewardship of the heritage asset from operation of the business, the model allows both to continue while supporting the long-term preservation of the property.

The case does not suggest that retaining an original use is always preferable to adaptive reuse. Nevertheless, it highlights the value of continuity where an established activity remains economically viable and culturally meaningful. In this respect, Rules illustrates how preserving place and purpose together can sustain a living heritage for future generations.

(Date: 27 October 2026)