Scoping the contextual issues that influence shrinkage measurement

Chapman, Paul; Templar, Simon

doi:10.1108/09590550610710255

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, shrinkage is broken down into four main types: external theft, internal theft, process or administrative errors and inter-company fraud. However, there is little consensus on which of these accounts for the most loss ( Chapman and Templar, 2006b ;Beck and Peacock, 2009 ). The annual surveys by the University of Florida (the National Retail Security Surveys), undertaken since 1991, typically conclude that internal theft accounts for the largest proportion of loss, with the most recent survey estimating that it was responsible for 44 per cent of all shrinkage ( Hollinger and Adams, 2008 ).…”

Section: Retail Shrinkagementioning

confidence: 97%

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

Beck

2011

Secur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using retailer case studies and a survey of employees, data are presented assessing the extent to which the introduction of self-scan checkouts in the retail environment affects the rate of shrinkage. It is argued that although available data currently suggest that they have little effect upon rates of shrinkage, the unique nature of the self-scan environment requires a more nuanced approach to the way in which crime prevention theory is used to understand the potential risks associated with this technology. It is concluded that retailers should think about creating ' zones of control ' for self-scan areas and that offending behaviour generated by customer frustration with this technology offers further evidence of the way in which theories of neutralisation, situational prevention and cognitive dissonance can inform the increasingly complex interplay between consumers and retail spaces.

show abstract

Section: Retail Shrinkagementioning

confidence: 97%

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

Beck

2011

Secur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "shrinkage" or "shortage" is used in the literature (e.g., Beck, 2016; Kohne and Pekeur, 2014) to refer to merchandise that cannot be accounted for (Dunne et al, 2015). Shrinkage is a critical problem for retailers as they operate in a relatively low margin sector (Chapman and Templar, 2006). It has been stated that shrinkage ranges from 1% to 4% of retail sales.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Economic Crisis And Retailers’ Security Concerns: The Trends

Balas¹,

Kaya²

2019

SEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines how the 2008-2009 global economic crisis affected retailers' spending on security and their losses due to theft, burglary, vandalism or arson. The main purpose of the research is to examine whether retailers were successful in allocating their funds to deal with security issues during and after an economic crisis. We investigate the role of firm characteristics, such as size, legal type, gender of owners and top managers, in influencing the level of perceived crime and security spending. Previous literature indicates that shrinkage due to theft, burglary, vandalism or arson is a threat to retailers. Loss due to theft, burglary, vandalism or arson increases in times of economic downturn as overall crime levels go up. We empirically examined the scientific problem, which is relevant to the profitability of retailers, by conducting Wilcoxon tests on data collected from twenty-nine Eastern European and Central Asian countries in 2008 and 2013. The focus of the study was Eastern European and Central Asian countries because Eastern European and Central Asian country governments have less resources to spend on combating crime compared to the developed countries and the impact of global crisis on theft, robbery, vandalism, or arson experienced by retailers might be more accentuated. Our empirical analysis indicated that fewer retailers paid for security after the crisis, and the retailers that paid for security spent less money on security. This is especially true for smaller firms, firms that are not part of a larger firm, sole proprietorships, and firms with no female owner. Fewer shareholding firms spent money on security post-crisis. Fewer retailers with male top managers spent money on security, but the ones that spent money, spent more post-crisis. Fewer retailers experienced losses due to crime post-crisis when compared to the pre-crisis period (except for partnerships, firms with five-to-nineteen employees, and firms with more than ninety-nine employees). Finally, retailers saw crime as less of an obstacle to their operation during the post-crisis period when compared to the pre-crisis period. This research has implications to the policymakers and retail managers by providing them the trends in crime and security spending for different retailer groups.

show abstract

“…Additionally, there are more factors contributing to inventory loss that businesses need to consider. For example, calculating inventory loss in the retail industry can be difficult because such losses occur for various reasons such as shoplifting, employee theft, vendor fraud, and administrative error (Bailey, 2006;Chapman & Templar, 2006;Moorthy et al, 2010). Because the actual breakdown of loss from theft is impossible to obtain, known losses are normally much smaller than the unknown losses (Bamfield, 2006).…”

Section: Business Response To Employee Theftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another reason theft remains unreported is that losses from employee theft can be difficult for a business to accept and handle. Businesses often attribute losses to external theft because of their attitude toward the issue, and they are often in denial of the level of theft by their own employees (Chapman & Templar, 2006). Theft of inventory is considered one of the most common types of employee fraud, and research has indicated that businesses suffer most fraud losses from employees rather than from customers (Moorthy et al, 2010).…”

Section: Business Response To Employee Theftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee Theft among College Students in the Workforce

Ruankaew¹

2019

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employee theft costs organizations billions of dollars annually. Despite the severity of employee theft, previous research has not focused on the specific demographics of employees who commit this crime. The number of college students in the workforce has increased over the years; thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the serious problem of employee theft, particularly in relation to the college student population. A survey was used to collect data from college students to indicate employee theft activities among them. Employee theft activities were categorized as follows: time theft, property theft, embezzlement, pilferage, and data and trade secret theft. Survey responses from 92 students indicated that the majority committed time theft, followed by property theft, pilferage, data and trade secret theft, and embezzlement, respectively. This study adds valuable information for businesses and practitioners to understand the severity of employee theft among the increasing number of college students in the workforce.

show abstract

Scoping the contextual issues that influence shrinkage measurement

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

The Global Economic Crisis And Retailers’ Security Concerns: The Trends

Employee Theft among College Students in the Workforce

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About