Sed quis custodiet? Employee theft in UK retailing

Abstract

PurposeEmployee 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.Design/methodology/approachThe 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.FindingsRetailer 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.Practical implicationsThe 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.Originality/valueThe 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.

Self-scan checkouts and retail loss: Understanding the risk and minimising the threat

“…It is not surprising then that trying to understand the particular risk associated with the checkout area is diffi cult to ascertain. Certainly, the problem of ' sweethearting ' at the till, where members of staff will facilitate their friends, family and colleagues to steal products by either not scanning goods through the checkout or providing illegitimate discounts, has long been recognised as a potential source of shrinkage ( Curtis, 1979 ;Carter et al , 1988 ;Bamfi eld, 1998 ;Greenberg, 2002 ;Bamfi eld, 2006 ). Equally, the theft of cash at the till by members of staff is also a perennial problem faced by retailers, although this is perhaps more easily measured and detected than sweethearting, as retailers have been able to adopt more controls relating to the counting and auditing of cash ( Hayes, 2007 ;Sennewald and Christman, 2008 ).…”

The use of violence in cargo theft – a supply chain disruption case

“…The typical perpetrator is described as a drug abuser stealing between £22,000 and £44,000 annually (ibid). Similar to theft of goods during transport, a relatively small number of thefts causes the majority of losses while the majority of thefts corresponds with relatively low loss values (Bamfield 2006).…”

Employee Theft among College Students in the Workforce

“…Research on the impact of employee theft has been conducted in various businesses and industries. In a study within a retail industry, the literature shows that the employee theft situation is intensifying and is a major cause of retail loss (Alstete, 2006;Bamfield, 2006). Despite the perception of shoplifting being high among retailers compared with employee theft, the cost of shoplifting is not as high as the cost of employee theft.…”

“…The concept of concealment by employees, in some cases, makes it more difficult for businesses to detect theft incidents. The extent to which employee theft affects a firm can be difficult to estimate because only a small proportion of employee theft is detected when it occurs (Bamfield, 2006). Unfortunately, the literature indicated that the majority of employee theft is not discovered.…”