Customer Service: The Non-Negotiable Pillar in Modern Transport Operations

1) Service failures are expensive — immediately and cumulatively

When deliveries go off-plan, organisations pay several times: redelivery runs, extra handling and storage, exception management, customer service time, refunds/discounts, and (often hidden) expediting costs. Coming from a supermarket/grocery background, I also know the knock-on effects to efficiency can linger after the recovery of the initial delivery. How many times have your transport managers had to amend their plan away from the optimal, to protect vocal or previously poorly serviced customers?

2) Poor delivery hurts reputation and loyalty

In the UK parcels market,  Ofcom’s 2023/24 post monitoring showed that two‑thirds (67%) of recipients experienced a delivery issue in the previous six months — even as overall satisfaction stays superficially high [3]. Compounding matters, 73% say they then faced further issues trying to resolve the problem — a reputational double‑hit for brands and carriers alike.

3) Recovery diverts focus from growth and optimisation

Operational leaders know the feeling: hours lost in “where’s my order?” chasers, chasing claims, and re‑planning to catch up on yesterday’s failures. Every minute spent firefighting exceptions is a minute not spent optimising the network, improving cost‑to‑serve, or testing growth propositions. I’ve personally been that leader, spending all too much time reviewing my delivery performance to determine which of my retail colleagues I need to spend more time calling, apologising to and managing my teams to protect their service next time.

4) Relationships and commercial risk for 3PLs/parcel carriers

For contract logistics and carrier partners, sustained under‑performance drives consolidation and re‑tendering. In the latest Third‑Party Logistics Study, only 49% of shippers say they are satisfied with 3PL IT capabilities — and 78% of shippers report consolidating their 3PL base. We are increasingly given poor performance, not just cost concerns, as a reason why clients engage us to review their contract logistics arrangements.

How expectations have moved — and diverged — in B2B and B2C

B2C (parcel/e-commerce)

• Reliability and visibility are now table stakes. 

  UK evidence shows persistent, widespread delivery problems, while customers expect precise tracking and communication (71%), flexible time windows (69%) and sustainable options (67%).

• Speed matters, but honesty matters more.

  Industry commentary suggests the vast majority of consumers prioritise ≤2-day delivery when choosing, yet they punish over-promising and under-delivering even more harshly — reflected in the Citizens Advice and Ofcom findings.  [2]

• Checkout decisions hinge on delivery.

  Cart-abandon research consistently shows delivery cost/speed among the top reasons for walk-away (e.g., “delivery too slow” as a key driver). [8][3][4]

B2B (contract and in house logistics)

• “Consumer‑grade” service for business buyers.

  Project44’s Delivery Economy work found 94% of business buyers expect the same focus on satisfaction as personal purchases — a direction of travel confirmed in broader CX research.

• OTIF and visibility are non-negotiable.

  Retailers and manufacturers embed penalties and performance scorecards; Walmart’s OTIF (3% COGS penalty) is the highest-profile example, and many UK/European retailers operate similar chargeback regimes.  [10]

• Data and integration are differentiators.

  The ability to give shippers data around how you are servicing their customers (internal or external) is becoming more and more relevant to the decision making around which 3PL to use (or justifying how well you are serving internal customers)

The Hatmill view: how our Transport Methodology helps set a service promise you can keep — then keep it visibly

Customer Service is not an end product of your transport operation; it is a design choice that must be considered throughout. That’s precisely why it stands as one of the five pillars in our methodology.

Effective transport operations don’t chase “fastest at any cost”; they promise realistic lead times, then publish credible status and ETA data. Our methodology assesses how well you embed this by viewing customer service in your operation across six workstreams:

• Data:

  Do you have a single version of truth for orders, stops and events, and address hygiene to prevent avoidable fails?

• Planning processes:

  Do your planners consider time‑window logic that balances cost and feasibility?

• Systems:

  Do you integrate TMS, carrier systems and customer comms to create consistent data flows and reporting?

• Warehousing:

  Do you challenge pick/pack cut-offs and cross-dock SLAs to protect the customer promise

• Operations & People:

  Are your teams empowered to act on exceptions early

• Feedback & Communication:  How do you instrument the post-delivery loop, to ensure you respond once, well?

This article is part of a broader series introducing Hatmill’s transport methodology and its five pillars: Cost, Compliance, Customer Service, Safety and ESG. Visit the Hatmill Transport pages to find out more, or get in touch with us if you’d like to discuss how our methodology could help you.

References

[1] APQC, “Mitigating Expedited Costs in Logistics,” Supply & Demand Chain Executive, 2020. Link

[2] DS Smith, “Last-mile delivery costs rise for 84% of businesses in UK and Europe,” Parcel & Postal Technology International, 2025. Link

[3] Citizens Advice, “Parcels League Table 2024.” Link

[4] Ofcom, “Post Monitoring Report,” ChannelX summary, 2024. Link

[5] Penske Logistics, “2024 Third-Party Logistics Study: Shippers, 3PLs Draw on the Power of Partnerships,” 2023. Link

[6] NTT DATA, “2024 Third-Party Logistics Study,” 2023. Link

[7] SupplierWiki (SupplyPike), “Walmart OTIF Metrics,” 2024. Link

[8] Retail Economics, “E-commerce Delivery Benchmark Report 2024.” Link

[9] Red Stag Fulfilment, “Percentage of Online Shoppers Abandon Their Cart,” 2024. Link

[10] Project44, “The Delivery Economy and the New Customer Experience,” 2019. Link