Search results

Crime is a major problem for many retailers. Uses data from three national retail crime surveys, analyses the extent and costs of retail crime in the UK and evaluates trends in customer and employee theft. Finds that most surveys show that crime costs UK retailers an average of 1.0‐1.5 per cent of their sales, whilst US retailers lose in excess of 25 per cent more. Discusses the management of retail security and the major loss prevention approaches adopted by stores. Reviews security technology used in both the UK and US, store exclusions, and civil recovery programmes. Concludes that combating retail crime requires a range of integrated policies to be used.

Employee theft is a significant part of retail losses from shrinkage, yet has been comparatively underexplored compared with shoplifting. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impacts of different forms of staff theft and fraud upon retail crime losses and analyse the characteristics of offenders.

The approach is based on a statistical analysis of the details (from retail records) of all staff offenders apprehended for theft by four major UK retailers over a two‐year period. The results are then compared with shrinkage losses for these retailers to discuss the implications of the findings.

Retailer concentration upon customer theft is difficult to explain given the significance of perceived staff theft on losses from crime. Only a small percentage of staff offenders were caught by retailers, but estimation problems were caused by the fact it was difficult to value the exact amount stolen over time by serial offenders. The majority of people apprehended were young and were believed to have stolen comparatively small amounts of cash or goods. In contrast, a small number of large‐scale offenders were responsible for 47 per cent of total known staff theft. Only a relatively small proportion of known staff crime involved collusion, the major losses were caused by theft of cash, major fraud losses, merchandise and refund fraud.

The implications of this study are significant for retailers. They suggest that retailers may concentrate on smaller‐scale wrongdoers rather than major frauds and that retailers may benefit from switching part of their loss‐prevention resources from shoplifting and minor staff offending to more considerable in‐house frauds.

The paper presents original data based on the characteristics of actual apprehended thieves rather than a discussion based primarily on shrinkage estimates). It presents new information for the academic community concerning the impact of different types of theft and fraud and challenges part at least of retailing conventional wisdom about “Who steals?” and “How?” It is valuable both to the academic community and to retail practitioners.

A self‐report questionnaire was used to discover key shrinkage, theft and loss prevention data from 476 major European retailers (23 per cent of West Europe's retail turnover) in 16 countries for the financial year 2001‐2002. The response rate was 33 per cent. Shrinkage rates were found to vary considerably between countries with a weighted average of 1.45 per cent (1.42 per cent in 2000/2001), equivalent to €30,310 million (or $27,582 million). A total of 18.3 per cent of shrinkage was perceived to be caused by “internal error” rather than crime and this estimate is deducted from shrinkage to derive the crime figure. Retail crime cost retailers €30,407 million ($27,670 million). In contrast to US data, customer theft was seen as the most important crime cost, followed by employee theft, security costs and supplier theft. Stores apprehended more than 1.2 million thieves in 2001/2002, but passed only 25.7 per cent to the police.

Telspar Viewdata provides members of the Spar independent voluntary grocery group with a two‐way exchange of information — at least as far as those served by wholesaler James Hall are concerned. It provides the retailer with an electronic ordering facility, with a personal printed stocklist, with a separate pricing facility, and with management reports on gross margin and stock control. The author claims that it takes computing “away from the hands of the experts and puts it in the hands of the branch manager or shop owner.”

The retail theft problem is a massive one — but, argues the writer, to attempt to fight it by total security is not the answer. Making the store into a fortress is not only expensive but quite unsuitable for modern retailing. Appropriate security is the answer, based on three requirements: information and a thorough understanding of the problem; accepting the world as it really is, and not as it ought to be; and cost‐effectiveness — security policies have to be justified by their results on retail profits. Such security may not necessarily require technology. But it has to be based on a thorough understanding of the retailer's security needs and expertise. And the retailer must face up to the distressing fact that the majority of theft is probably committed by staff.

Considers EDI for retailers in the context of innovation theory. A case study of nine retailers who adopted EDI during 1987‐92 is used to discuss the reasons why EDI was delayed until 1986‐93 even though it was technically possible in the early 1980s. Argues that an innovation will not join the portfolio of “possibles” until three issues are resolved. These are: innovation “poles” to disseminate EDI knowhow; cost and performance improvements to the technology; and management learning, based (in this case) on learning developed from handling EPoS. Also considers the decision‐making process underlying EDI.

Considers EDI for retailers in the context of innovation theory. A case study of nine retailers who adopted EDI during 1987‐92 is used to discuss the reasons why EDI was delayed until 1986‐93 even though it was technically possible in the early 1980s. Argues that an innovation will not join the portfolio of “possibles” until three issues are resolved. These are (1) innovation “poles” to disseminate EDI know‐how, (2) cost and performance improvements to the technology, and (3) management learning, based (in this case) on learning developed from handling EPoS. Also considers the decision‐making process underlying EDI.

The purpose of the paper is to draw attention to an area of research that has considerable potential for academic researchers in the disciplines of retailing and distribution studies.

The methodology adopted was an overview of existing literature with a view to identifying possible trends in research in the area of loss prevention.

The paper identifies an extensive body of existing literature and provides an indication of areas for future research in loss prevention.

The implications of these key issues are significant to the measurement of shrinkage in terms of the scope across the business from which shrinkage needs to be considered. This finding highlights the need to consider shrinkage as a systemic issue that extends across a business from design, through planning to operational execution. It also identifies the impact of shrinkage on increasing cost and depressing sales and considers the responsibility of management teams in addressing these matters.

This paper is an original discussion on the topic and thus of value to the academic community. It is also of value to the practitioner community as it highlights the importance of developing relationships with the academic community.

Based on the attitudes, opinions, predictions and insights provided by the USA and global key informants in the study, as well as recent activities in the marketplace, it seems likely that retailing and distribution will be impacted by growing consumer interest in, adoption of, and involvement with OLCISs. Around this premiss focuses on three questions: (1) where are we at the present time with OLCISs?; (2) where does a sample of key informants think we are headed?; and (3) what will need to happen to help us get there? On the basis of information and suggestions from informants and the authors′ personal experiences and insights, offers recommendations for needed changes in areas such as industry and systems, perceived price/value, service and product, marketing and education, and ease of use.