Amplifying Risk in the Retail Environment
This report takes a critical look at the evidence available in the public domain on a range of interventions currently being used that may be employed to try and reduce theft by making offenders think twice about committing a crime through amplifying their sense of perceived risk of detection.
The purpose of this report, which was published in 2016, is to review the available evidence on what is known to date about the efficacy of a range of methods and devices utilised by retailers to try and amplify risk in their retail stores. It is based upon an extensive review of the publicly available literature stretching back 30-40 years.
The report describes in detail the idea of ‘risk amplification’ whereby retailers can employ different ways to enhance prospective offenders’ concerns about the likelihood of apprehension. The study looks at six types of intervention: Tagging Technologies; Closed Circuit Television; Signage, Product Stickers and Campaigns; Security and Sales Staff; Store Design, Layout and Mirrors; and Shelf-based Interventions.
In terms of tagging technologies, the study found: evidence is generally positive but most studies lack rigorous and robust methodologies; all tags need to be highly visible or their presence ‘advertised’ on product packaging; hard tags seem to be more effective than soft tags; opportunistic would-be thieves are much more likely to be deterred by the presence of tagging technologies than professional thieves; and the technology struggles with a credibility issue relating to false alarms and the lack of a credible response at store exits.
With regards to CCTV: few studies have measured the direct impact of CCTV on retail store losses; results are largely inconclusive; its presence in stores make staff more confident to approach customers behaving suspiciously; and opportunistic thieves are more likely to be deterred by its presence than professional thieves.
The results for Signage, Product Stickers and Campaigns were: most studies are now very dated and employ methodologies with small samples and study periods; previous studies suggest they have an effect on levels of loss although the most recent study (2011) did not record any real impact.
With regards to Security and Sales Staff: numerous studies conclude that ‘people’ can play a very important role in amplifying risk; store guards can be effective but they need to be mobile and in close proximity to offenders; retail staff utilising good customer service practices can be very effective; both opportunistic and professional thieves regard retail store staff as an effective deterrent; staff can play an important role in reducing the anonymity of would-be thieves, a key prerequisite for some offenders when deciding to commit a crime or not.
The results for Store Design, Layout and Mirrors were: good store design and layout was found to be very important in providing the context for the amplification of risk by other interventions; it is important to ensure all retail staff have good line of sight in the store, especially of high-risk products – avoiding high shelving, cluttered spaces, narrow aisles; store design and layout needs to facilitate the use of formal mechanisms of surveillance, such as CCTV and security guards; there is no evidence to suggest mirrors amplify risk and they may simply offers ways for offenders to monitor the movement of retail staff.
Finally, the review of shelf-based interventions concluded that: only one poorly designed study was found which showed that a device to slow down the removal of products from the shelf, together with an alert each time a product was taken reduced levels of shrinkage considerably without affecting sales.
Abstract
The purpose of this report, which was published in 2016, is to review the available evidence on what is known to date about the efficacy of a range of methods and devices utilised by retailers to try and amplify risk in their retail stores. It is based upon an extensive review of the publicly available literature stretching back 30-40 years.
The report describes in detail the idea of ‘risk amplification’ whereby retailers can employ different ways to enhance prospective offenders’ concerns about the likelihood of apprehension. The study looks at six types of intervention: Tagging Technologies; Closed Circuit Television; Signage, Product Stickers and Campaigns; Security and Sales Staff; Store Design, Layout and Mirrors; and Shelf-based Interventions.
In terms of tagging technologies, the study found: evidence is generally positive but most studies lack rigorous and robust methodologies; all tags need to be highly visible or their presence ‘advertised’ on product packaging; hard tags seem to be more effective than soft tags; opportunistic would-be thieves are much more likely to be deterred by the presence of tagging technologies than professional thieves; and the technology struggles with a credibility issue relating to false alarms and the lack of a credible response at store exits.
With regards to CCTV: few studies have measured the direct impact of CCTV on retail store losses; results are largely inconclusive; its presence in stores make staff more confident to approach customers behaving suspiciously; and opportunistic thieves are more likely to be deterred by its presence than professional thieves.
The results for Signage, Product Stickers and Campaigns were: most studies are now very dated and employ methodologies with small samples and study periods; previous studies suggest they have an effect on levels of loss although the most recent study (2011) did not record any real impact.
With regards to Security and Sales Staff: numerous studies conclude that ‘people’ can play a very important role in amplifying risk; store guards can be effective but they need to be mobile and in close proximity to offenders; retail staff utilising good customer service practices can be very effective; both opportunistic and professional thieves regard retail store staff as an effective deterrent; staff can play an important role in reducing the anonymity of would-be thieves, a key prerequisite for some offenders when deciding to commit a crime or not.
The results for Store Design, Layout and Mirrors were: good store design and layout was found to be very important in providing the context for the amplification of risk by other interventions; it is important to ensure all retail staff have good line of sight in the store, especially of high-risk products – avoiding high shelving, cluttered spaces, narrow aisles; store design and layout needs to facilitate the use of formal mechanisms of surveillance, such as CCTV and security guards; there is no evidence to suggest mirrors amplify risk and they may simply offers ways for offenders to monitor the movement of retail staff.
Finally, the review of shelf-based interventions concluded that: only one poorly designed study was found which showed that a device to slow down the removal of products from the shelf, together with an alert each time a product was taken reduced levels of shrinkage considerably without affecting sales.
Taking each intervention in turn, the report shares the available evidence, providing perspective on the relative ‘quality’ of the research and the results presented.
For further information on this report. ECR Shrink Group