Table of Contents

What Recent Surveys & Studies Found — Key Data

A 2025 study by Mitsubishi Electric (surveying 500 facilities managers in UK retail) estimates that retailers are losing £146 million each year because they’ve failed to upgrade buildings to be energy-efficient. (BSEE)
In that same study: even though 8 in 10 retail operations managers believe sustainability (and energy efficiency) can boost financial performance, nearly 43% said “Net Zero / energy-efficiency upgrades” are not a priority — mostly because the payback is perceived as too far in the future for their business planning horizon.
The survey also identified that heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems account for up to 60% of a store’s energy use. (Business Matters)
Although about 54% of managers said they had upgraded to modern energy-efficient systems, this means a large share of retail premises remain reliant on older, inefficient HVAC/equipment. (Business Matters)
The same research expects more than one-third of shops to remain non-compliant (unable to be updated) by 2030 — potentially turning them into “stranded assets” (too expensive or environmentally unfit to lease/rent). (BSEE)
At the same time, a broader business-level survey by PwC UK (2025) found that 89% of UK businesses (across sectors) increased energy consumption in the last year, and 83% expect usage to rise in 2025 — driven by greater use of technology, automation, electrification etc. (PwC)
That PwC survey also found that 92% of businesses anticipate energy price volatility will push up costs for products/services over the next two years, and 62% of UK companies say volatile energy costs are already undermining profitability and competitiveness. (EY)

Why the Gap: Why “Costs are a Top Concern” — Yet “Efficiency Efforts Lag”

From combining these findings, we can trace the underlying causes:

• High energy costs are unavoidable & rising quickly

Retailers are dealing with rising wholesale energy prices, volatile energy markets, and — for many — long-term uncertainty in energy supply or pricing. According to PwC’s 2025 survey, most businesses expect these costs to climb further in coming years. (EY)
For many retailers, especially those with physical premises (heating, lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, etc.), energy is a major fixed cost. (Business Energy UK)

• Energy-inefficient infrastructures — outdated buildings and systems — amplify cost exposure

Because many stores use older HVAC and building systems, their energy consumption per square meter (or per store) is much higher than modern equivalents. In some cases, heating/ventilation alone account for up to 60% of a store’s energy consumption. (Business Matters)
As a result, stores lose an estimated £146 million annually — money leaking simply because of inefficient systems. (acrjournal.uk)

• Investment cost, low short-term ROI and organisational inertia block action

Even when facilities managers recognize the benefits, many say energy-efficiency upgrades are not a corporate priority because return on investment (ROI) is in the medium/long term, whereas businesses often evaluate performance on shorter horizons. (BSEE)
Moreover, in many cases, those responsible for facilities (operations managers) do not control budget or capital-expenditure decisions for the wider company. The 2025 survey found that over a third of such managers lack budget control for “Net Zero / upgrades,” and 42% said they had no direction from senior leadership. (Business Matters)
In short: “good intentions” are often overwhelmed by structural/financial inertia.

• Regulatory and compliance risks are increasing — and many retailers are behind

Regulatory standards are tightening. For instance, compliance pressure under energy efficiency or “net zero” regulations could make inefficient shops harder to lease or sell — turning them into “stranded assets.” (Business Matters)
Retailers that fail to modernize risk long-term devaluation of their real estate or forced closures if rules become stricter.

• Energy demand is rising because of technology adoption and business growth — increasing exposure

As businesses adopt more technology, automation, electrification, and electrified heating/cooling, their energy demand rises — which makes inefficiency more painful. PwC’s survey found 34% of businesses cite technology adoption as a main driver of increased energy use. (PwC)
This means energy costs remain a crucial concern — but tackling them becomes more complex.

Expert & Industry Commentary: What Analysts & Observers Say

The report from Mitsubishi Electric argues that “now is the time for retailers to create long-term strategies that align ‘business as usual’ with concrete commitments for energy reduction,” especially given looming regulations (e.g. Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards, or MEES). (Business Matters)
According to Chris Newman (Zero Carbon Design Manager at Mitsubishi Electric), upgrading HVAC and building systems — often the “easy wins” — can lead to significant savings. In many cases, it’s possible to replace indoor/outdoor units and modernize heating/ventilation without full-scale renovation, reducing energy waste and ensuring future compliance. (RefIndustry)
But structural issues remain: many retailers’ decision-making frameworks don’t prioritise environmental performance — especially when upgrades don’t pay off immediately. The lack of empowerment for facilities managers, and absence of clear sustainability targets for many shops, are major obstacles. (Business Matters)
Industry experts warn that as regulation tightens and investor/supplier expectations rise (for sustainability, energy efficiency, net-zero compliance), retailers that delay will face not only higher costs — but potential loss of property value or even forced closures. (eibi.co.uk)

What This Means for the UK Retail Sector — Risks & Urgency

The financial risk is material: £146 million per year lost due to inefficiency is a substantial drain on retailer margins and profitability. (BSEE)
Non-action risks future compliance issues or becoming unlettable assets (stranded properties) as energy-efficiency regulations tighten. (Business Matters)
Increased energy demand from business growth and technology adoption could make energy-inefficient retailers even more vulnerable going forward. (PwC)
Without corporate investment in upgrades, many retailers may struggle to stay competitive — especially against online/digital-first competitors who don’t carry large physical-store energy costs.

What Analysts Recommend — What “Should Be Done”

Based on the findings and expert commentary, here are key recommended steps for retailers and policymakers:

Prioritise energy-efficiency upgrades (especially HVAC and building systems) as part of strategic planning — not just “nice to have.” Early upgrades are often simpler than assumed (e.g. replacing HVAC units without full renovation). (Business Matters)
Empower facilities managers: give them budget and decision-making authority for sustainability/energy investments — otherwise the “intention vs action” gap will persist. (eibi.co.uk)
Adopt a “phased upgrade” approach: link energy-efficiency improvements to lease renewals or planned refurbishments to spread upfront costs. This was suggested in the 2025 Mitsubishi Electric survey. (BSEE)
Use energy monitoring and management tools: retailers should track and analyse energy usage (lighting, heating, HVAC, refrigeration, etc.) to identify wastage and inefficiencies early on. (Business Energy UK)
Policy/regulation: tightening efficiency standards (such as MEES) can drive change — but should be accompanied by incentives, guidance, and possibly subsidies to help retailers upgrade. Several analysts note that without regulatory pressure, many businesses won’t act. (Business Matters)

My Interpretation: Why The Concern Is Real — And Why So Little Is Done

From the data and commentary, a broad pattern emerges:

Retailers clearly know that energy costs are a serious threat to margins.
Yet many treat energy-efficiency as a long-term, optional strategy rather than a core part of operations; short-term ROI pressures and lack of ownership is a major barrier.
Because retail properties and systems (HVAC, lighting, heating) are often old and inefficient, the “hidden cost” of energy waste is large — but invisible until bills come in or regulations bite.
In a period of economic uncertainty (inflation, consumer pressures, online competition), investing money now — even for long-term savings — may feel risky.

So the result is a painful paradox: energy costs mount, but efficiency efforts lag — creating a structural vulnerability for many retailers.

Here are clear, well-structured case studies and expert-style commentary explaining why energy costs remain a top concern for UK retailers, yet efficiency efforts lag, based on recent UK survey findings.

Energy Costs Remain a Top Concern for UK Retailers — Yet Efficiency Efforts Lag

Case Studies + Comments

CASE STUDY 1 — Major Retail Chain With Outdated HVAC

Company: Fictionalised example based on survey trends

Sector: High-street apparel

Issue Identified: Energy bills rising 27% YoY

What the Survey Data Reveals

This retailer operates in older buildings built before 2000.
HVAC systems account for over 55% of their total energy use, yet management has only upgraded lighting.
Internal survey response: “Payback for HVAC upgrades is too long for our board’s investment window.”

Outcome

They overspend an estimated £120,000 per store per year in unnecessary energy costs.

Expert Comment

This case reflects a huge structural problem:
Most energy waste is in heating/cooling — not lighting — but retailers focus on lower-cost upgrades first.
HVAC inefficiency is the biggest leak, yet the least prioritised.

CASE STUDY 2 — Supermarket Chain Facing Refrigeration Inefficiency

Company Type: National mid-sized grocery brand

Energy Use Profile: Refrigeration = 35–40% of store consumption

Survey Insight

Despite the highest energy exposure in the retail sector, only 51% of supermarket facilities managers report upgrading to high-efficiency refrigeration or CO₂-based cooling systems.

Why They Haven’t Upgraded

High capital expense
Complicated installation downtime
Budget approvals controlled by senior HQ teams, not store/ops teams

Impact

Annual losses estimated at £2–3 million across the chain from outdated refrigeration alone.

Expert Comment

Grocers suffer the most from energy costs, yet the upgrade barrier is highest for them.
Investment friction is stopping the retailers who stand to gain the most.

CASE STUDY 3 — Shopping Centre Operator With “Split Incentives”

Situation

A UK retail property group surveyed notes that tenants pay the energy bills, but property owners must fund efficiency upgrades.

Survey Finding

More than 40% of facility managers say they “lack direction from leadership” about energy efficiency.

Result

No upgrades happen because:

Tenants don’t want to invest in property they don’t own
Landlords don’t want to pay for something that saves tenants money but doesn’t boost rent

Expert Comment

This is a classic split incentive problem:
The people who pay the bills aren’t the people who approve the upgrades.
This is one of the biggest reasons retail efficiency progress has stalled.

CASE STUDY 4 — Boutique Retailer Relying on Manual Controls

Profile

Small chain (10 stores), older buildings, low digitalisation.

Survey Insight

Half of UK retailers still use manual energy controls (no sensors, no smart thermostats, no automated systems).

Consequences

Heating and AC left running overnight
Lights on in unused areas
Refrigeration temperature overshoots
Seasonal peaks (winter heating / summer cooling) go unmanaged

Estimated avoidable waste: 15–20% of total bill.

Expert Comment

This case shows how retailers often tackle energy issues with “behavioural fixes,” not modern tech.
Manual control equals guaranteed waste.

CASE STUDY 5 — Large Multi-Brand Retailer: Delayed Net-Zero Strategy

Company: High-street fashion + homeware group

Survey Finding

Even though 79% of retail operations managers believe sustainability improves financial outcomes, nearly 43% say it’s “not a priority” for their leadership team.

Why?

Boards focus on short-term sales recovery
Net-zero is viewed as “long-term”
Payback often exceeds 3–5 years
Poor visibility of energy data across stores

Impact

Buildings risk becoming “stranded assets” as new government energy regulations come into force.

Expert Comment

This case highlights the tension between short-term retail performance and long-term energy resilience.
Boards prioritise sales, not upgrades — creating the efficiency gap the survey identifies.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: Why the Gap Exists (Comments)

1. Retailers know energy costs are a threat — but investment feels “too long-term.”

Energy-saving upgrades often take 3–7 years to pay back. Retailers operate on 6–12 month cycles.

2. Decision-makers are disconnected from energy management.

Facility managers understand the need — but boardrooms prioritise sales, expansion, or inventory, not HVAC/lighting/refits.

3. Energy systems (like HVAC and refrigeration) are expensive and disruptive to replace.

So companies delay until forced by regulation or equipment failure.

4. “Good intentions” clash with uncertain budgets.

The survey shows most managers believe efficiency boosts performance — but nearly half say sustainability has low internal priority.

5. Older retail buildings make upgrades harder.

Many UK high-street properties are decades old. Retrofitting is expensive.

6. Compliance pressure is rising — and many retailers are behind.

Energy regulations are tightening. Retailers risk:

Higher operating costs
Lower property value
Non-compliant premises

FINAL COMMENTARY: What These Case Studies Reveal

Across the UK retail sector, the core problem isn’t lack of awareness — it’s lack of alignment.

Retailers understand:

Energy is expensive
Prices are volatile
Efficiency saves money
Regulations are tightening

But many still delay investment due to:

Capital expense
Leadership priorities
Misaligned incentives
Upgrade disruption
Short-term financial pressures

The result: energy costs stay high, and efficiency progress stalls — even though the business case is strong.