Loss Prevention: Research Findings from Professor Martin Gill

I recently led a study looking at the future of loss prevention.

Supported by Marks and Spencer but involving representatives from loss prevention in leading retailers, the study posed questions on the scope of loss prevention work; how budgets are set and influenced and how expenditure and on going work is justified; and the perceived effectiveness of a different measures used to mitigate loss. A full copy of the report is available here.

What did the study find?

Sometimes technology is presented as an unqualified good, but this is to oversimplify the position. Sure, it offers real opportunities to better understand threats and therefore to improve the response.

But getting the right technology is tricky. There is a lot out there and determining what is best is one problem, and things change quickly; it can be difficult to keep up.

And offenders use technology too, and rather effectively, committing offences from afar. These people can be difficult to detect and even more difficult to prosecute.

Showing success was often related to shrink figures, but these are unreliable and, just as importantly, something over which loss prevention personnel only have partial control

Yet, as one interviewee noted, there is a need to not overstate the dangers of trading online because there are good suppliers providing checks, so one can be fairly sure the people wishing to trade are who they say they are.

But when things do go wrong, where for example the loss involves customer data, then the consequences can be severe. This threat, about which there is increasing awareness, can be used to help support cases for more funding. When it comes to threats, organised crime appears to be an ever-increasing problem.

Interviewees believed they were doing a good job, with board support. Showing success was often related to shrink figures.

 

This provoked two interesting thoughts. The first is that they are unreliable and not a good measure and as importantly, something over which loss prevention personnel only have partial control.

Less deterrence

In fact some noted that broader trends in retailing, such as the tendency to have less personnel/sales assistants on the shop floor may save on costs but it increases the risk of loss with less surveillance and less deterrence as a result.

There is a move to a focus on ‘total loss’, looking at other elements of shrink such as wastage and damage as opposed to theft, but this appears to be a trend some are keen to follow.

According to those working in loss prevention guards, CCTV, EAS, RFID, civil recovery, crime partnerships all have a potential place (at least by some) but all have limitations. By far the most effective tool was seen as members of staff offering a visible presence, focused and committed on delivering loss prevention alongside other duties. There was no doubt that properly prepared, have the potential to be a significant influence.

This becomes all the more important given the fact that the police service is less interested in retail crime. Perhaps this reality will be the driver of a more self-reliant and confident retail loss prevention approach.

The evidence is that they are doing a good job, albeit one that is not always appreciated.

 

About Professor Martin Gill

Professor Martin Gill is a criminologist and Director of Perpetuity Research which started life as a spin out company from the University of Leicester. He holds honorary/visiting Chairs at the Universities of Leicester and London. Martin has been actively involved in a range of studies relating to different aspects of business crime including, the causes of false burglar alarms, why fraudsters steal, the effectiveness of CCTV, the victims of identity fraud, how companies protect their brand image, the generators of illicit markets and stolen goods, to name but a few.

Martin has been extensively involved with evaluation research and with the offender’s perspective looking at how they target certain people and premises and aim to circumvent security measures. He has published 14 books including the second edition of the ‘Handbook’ of Security’ which was published in July 2014. Martin is a Fellow of The Security Institute, a member of the Company of Security Professionals (and a Freeman of the City of London), he is a member of the both ASIS International Research Council and the Academic and Training Programs Committee and a Trustee of the ASIS Foundation.

In 2002 the ASIS Security Foundation made a ‘citation for distinguished service’ in ‘recognition of his significant contribution to the security profession’. In 2009 he was one of the country’s top 5 most quoted criminologists. In 2010 he was recognised by the BSIA with a special award for ‘outstanding service to the security sector’.

In 2016 IFSEC Global ranked him as the fourth most influential fire and security expert and in 2015 he was nominated and shortlisted for the Imbert Prize at the Association of Security Consultants. In January 2016 he was entered onto the Register of Chartered Security Professionals. Martin is the Founder of the Outstanding Security Performance Awards (the OSPAs).