Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:17 pm
Time: 8:17 pm
Results for loss prevention
7 results foundAuthor: Bamfield, Joshua Title: Changing Retail, Changing Loss Prevention Summary: At one time, protecting a retail corporation's assets was a role seen primarily as a policing one and retailers employed personnel (often with a police or military background) to carry out this task. The main role was to apprehend thieves stealing from the organisation and to prevention violent crime. The expectation was that this role was to be carried out mostly by arresting malefactors and handing them to the police. The value of retail security was often judged in terms of the numbers of arrests made and the efficiency of individual loss prevention officers would frequently be measured in terms of whether they had achieved their target number of arrests. Starting with the U.S. the 'retail security' (ie policing) model of loss prevention has been increasingly disparaged. The role of loss prevention, as its name suggests, has been to minimise retail loss rather than arresting large numbers of people. Loss prevention has been seen as being more concerned with financial and operational performance capable of reducing or preventing losses of all kinds. Specialist skills of investigation and arresting thieves without creating civil liability are of course essential to loss prevention work, but they only form part of what is required. The emphasis increasingly has been upon the prevention and deterrence of offending, and much less upon apprehending as many thieves as is practicable. Indeed, at its best, a good loss prevention department might have no arrests at all if its prevention work is of a very high order, although in practical terms this is highly unlikely. Apprehending thieves, processing them and handing them to the police (inevitably involving some court appearances) is extremely expensive and often costs more than the merchandise recovered when a thief is caught. Loss prevention specialists certainly patrol the stores and investigate suspicious employee behaviour, but loss prevention also includes preparing improved procedures, ensuring greater conformity with company loss prevention policy, training staff to be more aware of potential loss, analysing loss and working with other departments to mitigate actual or potential losses caused by error or procedural failures (as well as loss caused by crime), and helping to develop new policies needed for the changing pattern of retail losses, such as online losses or losses caused by the growing problem of refund/returns fraud. Details: Newark, Nottinghamshire, UK: Centre for Retail Research, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://all-tag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GRTB_Changing_Retail_Changing_Loss_Prevention_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://all-tag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GRTB_Changing_Retail_Changing_Loss_Prevention_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 135305 Keywords: Crime Against BusinessesCrime PreventionEmployee TheftLoss PreventionRetail SecurityRetail TheftShoplifting |
Author: Gill, Martin Title: Retail Loss Prevention in Perspective Summary: There is a new report out today which provides a view of the state of loss prevention from those who are in charge of it. Leading loss prevention managers have contributed to this report. It shows that while organised crime is perceived to be a more significant problem now than in the past, the aggravating factor appears to be a strong view that the police are ever more neglectful of retailers. This problem is stoked by other trends such as a tendency to have fewer staff available on the shop floor (and thus less oversight of it); the speed with which retailers make moves in the market to gain a competitive edge without the time to assess the loss/security implications; and the growing practice of opening stores in difficult geographical areas. Against this background, margins in retailing were generally seen to be tight and it was becoming increasingly more difficult to get support for spending on loss prevention measures, although there were some notable successes. Those interviewed generally (but not exclusively) felt they were doing a good job although for most there was room for improvement. Most felt they were supported by the Board but again there was often room for improvement here, and part of the difficulty was that loss prevention was typically distanced from the Board. Moreover, while most were judged at least in part (although often in large part) on loss figures it was noted that this was not something over which they had complete control. Resources were seen as tight and this was sometimes a limitation interviewees said they had to work within. It was seen as difficult to compare performance because figures on shrink were deemed unreliable; it certainly complicated comparisons. Some retailers are moving to 'Total Loss', and this is creating a slight change in focus. Guards were seen to have a use in responding to problems and in providing a visible deterrent but some pointed to lower losses even when guards were taken out of stores. Likewise CCTV was sometimes seen as an essential part of a strategy but others pointed to out of date technology and cameras not being used to their full potential even when present. EAS was sometimes seen as effective against opportunists in particular but also as a poor relation to RFID although for the most part the jury was out on this when assessed in terms of theft prevention rather than stock management. In short, all security measures were seen as good by some and not by others. That said, the favoured crime prevention tool was most often staff; offering both a visible presence and an opportunity to prevent thefts and intervene when necessary. Going forward there is likely to be a greater use of data and linking different databases to inform loss prevention approaches. There were mixed views of both civil recovery schemes and the usefulness of crime partnerships. It was not so much that when done well they were not both praised, they were. Rather it was the case that often practice did not match the potential to influence loss reduction. This was the cause of some anxiety and highlights areas where there are opportunities for improvement. Those working in loss prevention claimed to generate ideas and insights from each other, and there was willingness to work with others potentially pooling resources where appropriate, to improve the loss prevention lot. While some lamented that loss prevention has not raised its game sufficiently others saw potential via greater use of data and intelligence, better use of technologies, more effective engagement from front line staff and via - in certain circumstances - sharing resources to increase their future impact. Details: Tunbridge Wells, UK: Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International, 2016. 45p. Source: Available at the Rutgers Criminal Justice Library Year: 2016 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 145577 Keywords: Crime PreventionCrimes Against BusinessesLoss PreventionOrganized CrimeRetail TheftShoplifting |
Author: Euromonitor International, Title: The Global Retail Theft Barometer 2012-2013 Summary: Objective The objective of this report is to understand the rate of shrinkage in 16 countries, as well as the leading causes and methods of prevention. Two main data points are provided: - Average rate of shrinkage (in % terms) for retailing as a whole for each of the 16 countries. - Reasons for shrink: % share of shoplifting, employee theft, vendor or supplier fraud and administrative and non-crime losses of total shrink in each country. In addition to the aforementioned data points, insights per country include qualitative analysis on best methods of loss prevention, most stolen items and impact of shrinkage/loss on retailers in the country. Methodology Euromonitor International conducted in-depth trade interviews with Loss Prevention managers of leading retailers in each of the 16 countries, covering a questionnaire focussing on the aforementioned data and qualitative points (e.g. providing an estimate of total national shrinkage losses). The retailers were chosen based on their rank within the Passport retailing database (Euromonitor International's syndicated database), aiming to cover companies within the top 15 retailers where possible, in order to discuss shrinkage on a national level. Furthermore, Euromonitor International conducted an online survey of retailers across the researched countries, and responses were leveraged for further insights. Where available, completed questionnaires from the survey were used to supplement the information from the trade interviews, in order create country shrinkage estimates for each market. A total of 157 companies in 16 countries were interviewed and surveyed for this study. These companies generated approximately 18% (US$1,500 billion USD) in 2012 of total retail value sales in the 16 countries combined. Euromonitor's team of researchers and consultants analysed the quantitative and qualitative information achieved through the methodology ultimately selected in order to understand 2012 trends in shrinkage and loss prevention in the selected geography/ scope. Reported Data - All results are reported on a national basis. - All shrinkage figures in this report are based on average selling (retail) prices. - Values in the report are given in US Dollars. Retail Industry Overview The qualitative and quantitative analysis in the country report sections "Industry Overview" are drawn from Passport, Euromonitor International`s syndicated research database, which is updated annually across 80 different countries. Details: Thorofare, NJ: Checkpoint Systems, 2013. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://www.odesus.gr/images/nea/eidhseis/2013/GRTB-2012-13-Eng.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.odesus.gr/images/nea/eidhseis/2013/GRTB-2012-13-Eng.pdf Shelf Number: 140659 Keywords: Loss PreventionRetail TheftShopliftingShrinkage |
Author: Euromonitor International, Title: The Global Retail Theft Barometer: 2014-2015 Summary: The GRTB "Global Retail Theft Barometer" is a study on the cost of shrinkage for the global retail industry. Apart from providing shrinkage trends at the global and regional levels, this year's report also provides country level trends for 11 select countries, out of the 24 countries covered in the research. The objective of this report is to understand shrinkage rates in four key regions, covering 24 countries, as well as the reasons for shrinkage and steps taken to prevent such loss. Key data points provided are as follows: - Average rate of shrinkage (in percentage terms) for the retail industry - Reasons for shrinkage: % internal theft, external theft, vendor theft, and administrative factors - Popular loss prevention solutions Qualitative insights into reasons for shrinkage, adoption of loss prevention solutions and approach towards loss prevention have also been provided. Prepared by The Smart Cube (TSC), presented with Ernie Deyle, and funded by an independent grant from Checkpoint Systems, Inc., the report is the world's most comprehensive survey of retail crime and loss. All figures in the report relate to the twelve months, ending December 2014. Details: Thorofare, NJ: Checkpoint Systems, 2015. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2016 at: http://www.odesus.gr/images/nea/eidhseis/2015/3.Global-Retail-Theft-Barometer-2015/GRTB%202015_web.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.odesus.gr/images/nea/eidhseis/2015/3.Global-Retail-Theft-Barometer-2015/GRTB%202015_web.pdf Shelf Number: 146673 Keywords: Loss Prevention Retail Theft Shoplifting Shrinkage |
Author: Sidebottom, Aiden Title: A Systematic Review of Tagging as a Method to Reduce Theft in Retail Environments Summary: Retailers routinely use security tags as a form of situational measure to reduce theft. Guided by the acronym EMMIE, this paper set out to 1) examine the evidence that tags are Effective at reducing theft, 2) identify the Mechanisms through which tags are expected to reduce theft and the conditions that Moderate tag effectiveness, and 3) summarise information relevant to the Implementation and Economic costs of tagging. Following a systematic search of the published and unpublished literature, and through consultation with four retailers, we identified fifty studies that met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies reporting quantitative data were assessed in relation to the effectiveness of tags, but heterogeneity in the type of tag and the reported outcome measures precluded a meta-analysis. Based on the available evidence it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of tags as a theft reduction measure, albeit there is suggestive evidence that more visible tags outperform less visible tags. The three identified mechanisms through which tags might plausibly reduce theft - increase the risks, reduce the rewards, increase the effort - were found to vary by tag type, and their activation dependent on five broad categories of moderator: retail store and staff, customers (including shoplifters), tag type, product type, and the involvement of the police and wider criminal justice system. Implementation challenges related to staffing issues and tagging strategy. Finally, although estimates are available on the costs of product tagging, our literature searches identified no high-quality published economic evaluations of tagging. The implications of our findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.. Details: London: What Works Centre for Crime Reduction, University College London, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: What Works Crime Reduction systematic Review Series: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Retail-tagging-SR-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Retail-tagging-SR-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 146615 Keywords: Loss PreventionProduct TaggingRetail TheftShopliftingShrinkageSituational Crime Prevention |
Author: Beck, Adrian Title: Emerging Technology in Loss Prevention Retailing: Benchmarking the Loss Prevention Industry Summary: Context - This is the second in a series of benchmarking surveys focussing on issues that are of particular interest to the retail loss prevention industry. - This study looks at the issue of emerging technologies and their use in the retail loss prevention arena. It presents data on the perceived value of nine technologies, the extent to which they are currently being used, and the primary problem they are considered to address. The study also collected data about how the loss prevention technology industry is perceived by loss prevention practitioners. - The survey sample represents $1.576 trillion in US retail sales (48% of the market) with a total of 123,333 stores. Findings - Exception-based Video Alerting was regarded as the technology with the highest potential, followed by GPS Product Tracking and then RFID. - Respondents were much less convinced about the potential impact or signifcance of Body-mounted Cameras and Biometric Technologies. - The technologies most in use or being piloted were GPS Product Tracking (46%), Exception-based Video Alerting systems (41%) and RFID (32%). - No retailers responding to this survey said they were currently using Body-mounted Cameras although two were planning to use them in the near future. - Exception-based video alerting, non-scan POS detection and Smart Shelves were the top three emerging technologies that respondents were planning to use in the near future. - Retailers selling apparel were more likely to be using or planning to use RFID. - Retailers selling food were more likely to be using or planning to use Non-scan Activation technologies and Smart Shelf technologies. - For those using or planning to use Feature Recognition and Smart Shelf technologies, they were seen by the majority of respondents as being important in responding to ORC. - A sizable minority of respondents (31%) also regarded Smart Shelves as being useful for inventory control. - RFID was primarily seen as a technology for helping with inventory control (81%). - Both Exception-based Video Alerts and Non-scan POS Detection were primarily seen as tools to help tackle internal theft. - Body-mounted Cameras were viewed as a tool almost exclusively to help with issues of safety and security. - Biometrics was largely seen as a technology to be used to target internal theft and safety/security issues. - Most respondents viewed the Loss Prevention Technology Industry's performance as being adequate (48%), with a signifcant percentage considering that they had been either successful or very successful (37%). Details: London, UK: LPM, 2017. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: http://www.jard.me/source/brochure/16_1509469871.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://losspreventionmedia.com/loss-prevention-magazine/m-benchmarking/understanding-data-analytics-loss-prevention/ Shelf Number: 154325 Keywords: BenchmarkingBiometric TechnologiesBody CamerasLoss PreventionRetail Loss PreventionSupply Chain SecurityTechnologiesVideo Cameras |
Author: Beck, Adrian Title: Making the Link: The Role of Employee Engagement in Controlling Retail Losses Summary: Based upon questionnaires from more than 200,000 members of staff in three large European retailers with a combined turnover of over L35 billion and 1,570 stores, this report explores the link between levels of employee engagement, measured across 18 factors, and four indicators of retail loss: shrinkage, waste, cash loss, and lost sales driven by out of stocks. - Total losses (a combination of shrinkage, waste, cash loss and lost sales through out of stocks) for the participating companies amounted to 3.12% of retail turnover. - For Europe this equates to losses of over L25 billion a year for the grocery channel. - Waste accounted for the largest proportion of loss: 53%; followed by losses caused by out of stocks (OOS) (25%) and then shrinkage (22%) with cash losses generating the least amount of losses (1%). The Value of Engaged Employees - A significant number of employee engagement factors were found to be linked with the four loss indicators - 15 of the 18 Factors were associated with loss. - By improving performance on just 6 key engagement factors in the bottom 25% of stores to the average found in the rest of the business, the European Grocery sector could save as much as L380 million a year. - More specifically, by targeting only the bottom quartile of stores the following savings could be made: - 9.8% reduction in waste. - 19.6% reduction in lost profits through out of stocks. - 12.5% reduction in shrinkage. - 9.5% reduction in cash loss. Key Role of Store Management - The role of store management was found to be key to delivering many of the most important engagement factors driving potential reductions in store losses: communicating effectively; making staff feel appreciated and valued; building good teamwork; ensuring staff roles are manageable; providing opportunities for staff development; and taking seriously ideas offered by their staff. Making a Difference in Your Business This ground-breaking study suggests that retailers should: - Recognise the value of targetting employee engagement, particularly in the bottom quartile of stores in their business. - Review the selection process for store management and applicants' capacity to deliver on employee engagement. - Incorporate these results into training programmes for store managers - show them the value of improving employee engagement and how important their role is. - Think about how the business communicates change to its employees - they want to know what is happening and why. - Provide ways for staff to feed back ideas for improving the way the business operates (and if used, make sure they are recognised). - Consider ways in which employees can be given opportunities for future development within the business. - Reward good performance, even if it is only a 'thank you'. - Consider either utilising Employee Engagement surveys or reanalysing existing survey data to consider potential links between staff responses and a range of loss indicators - where possible do not just use the 'shrinkage' number as it is often a weak indicator of store performance on loss. - Reflect upon how your business measures loss and whether current strategies and prioritises are targeting the most pressing areas of 'loss'. While the role of well motivated and engaged staff play in helping to sell more has previously been identified, this report provides new evidence that staff can also play a pivotal role in enabling retail companies to lose less. In a time of considerable change within retailing, making the most of the people employed to help deliver business profitability is critical - this study has found that the successful management of all forms of loss is just as important as delivering sales in generating retail success. Details: Brussels, Belgium: ECR Europe, 2014. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312524115_Making_the_Link_The_Role_of_Employee_Engagement_in_Controlling_Retail_Losses Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312524115_Making_the_Link_The_Role_of_Employee_Engagement_in_Controlling_Retail_Losses Shelf Number: 154326 Keywords: Cash LossEmployee EngagementLoss PreventionRetail StoresRetailers |