Retail Loss Prevention Expertise and Research

Enabling the Retail Sector to Sell More and Lose Less

Calculating Your Staff Dishonesty Detection Gap: New Excel Tool for Retailers

In her new report for ECR Retail Loss, click here, Professor Emmeline Taylor introduces the internal theft ‘detection gap’ which she refers to as the difference between the estimated amount of theft committed by employees and the known amount that is detected or recorded by the retailer. It is widely acknowledged that most internal theft goes undetected or is only discovered – and actioned - after significant losses have occurred. We provide here a simple excel tool that we hope can help loss prevention leaders explore their own detection gap that can help shape, inform and articulate the choices and measures the business might want to adopt to influence and prevent staff dishonesty. The excel form, downloadable below, is a simple formula. It asks you the following questions: How many stores do you operate? (example, 100) What is the value of your total sales per year from these stores? (example, €100 million) What is your unexplained / loss rate (typically valued at cost over retail sales? (example: 1.5%) What is your best estimate on the percentage attributable to staff dishonesty (example, 33%) How many staff dishonesty cases do you close per year? (example, 200) What is the average value of a staff dishonesty case? (example $200) From these questions, the excel tool will then calculate your detection gap, which in this example, using the above data points, would be 92%. CLICK HERE FOR THE EXCEL MODEL The research paper makes the case that communications strategies can be an effective way to close the gap and help retail businesses' prevent and reduces losses associated with staff dishonesty. Sharing with your business leaders the difference between what the loss prevention team are currently able to detect and close, with the possible larger universe, could be one way to promote the case for change and for more efforts to prevent staff dishonesty, especially communications.

Managing Trolley Losses: Retail Best Practices

In USA, over 2 million shopping carts are lost a year. What are the best ways to track and monitor this problem? What are the root causes? What are the interventions that can make the biggest differences? What could be some of the "out of the box" future innovations to deliver a paradigm shift in the loss rate? These were the open questions the working group sought to answer. Here is a summary of the discussion. The Scale of the Problem Retailers in the group reported annual trolley losses ranging from 3% to over 35%, depending on location and store type. For example, one UK retailers loses between 4,000 and 5,000 trolleys annually, costing approximately £500,000. While, a USA retailer reported losing over 50,000 carts in a year—about 11% of its fleet—translating to a potential $20 million replacement cost. All retailers reported that a clear pareto, for example, for one retailer, 25% of the stores represented over 70% of the losses underscoring the magnitude of the issue, especially in urban and high-theft areas. Root Causes of Trolley Loss The causes of trolley loss are multifaceted: Theft for Scrap Metal: Rising steel prices have made metal trolleys attractive targets for theft, often by organized groups using unmarked vans. Customer Entitlement: In some regions, customers feel entitled to take trolleys home, leading to widespread abandonment in residential areas. Coin locking potentially helps increase this feeling of entitlement. Homelessness and Anti-Social Behaviour: Trolleys are frequently used by unhoused individuals or vandalised by youths, especially in urban centres. Operational Gaps: Inconsistent counting, lack of accountability, and limited surveillance contribute to unnoticed losses. Current Interventions and Best Practices Retailers are deploying a variety of strategies to mitigate trolley loss, focusing on prevention, accountability, and innovation. #1. Accountability and Awareness Many retailers are working to shift internal mindsets, treating trolleys as valuable assets rather than disposable tools. Education campaigns for staff and customers emphasize the cost and impact of trolley loss. Some retailers have created dedicated working groups to monitor high-loss stores and improve reporting. #2. Technology and Tracking Gatekeeper Systems: These use perimeter loops to lock trolley wheels when they leave designated areas. While effective, they are costly and unsuitable for shared or complex retail environments. Coin Locks: Still used in some regions, these encourage returns but are less effective in a cashless society. Digital Locks and Apps: Trials involving app-based unlocking systems have faced challenges with user adoption and cost. GPS and RFID: These technologies are being explored but are currently cost-prohibitive at scale. #3. Plastic vs. Metal Trolleys Plastic Trolleys: Most retailers were trialling or have trialled fully plastic trolleys to reduce scrap value. Results show significant reductions in theft, but concerns remain about durability, flammability, and recyclability. Hybrid Models: Some retailers use a mix of plastic and metal to balance cost and resilience. Recycling and Sustainability: Plastic trolleys are often made from recycled materials (e.g., milk cartons), but end-of-life recycling logistics remain a challenge. #4. Design and Deterrence Powder Coating: One retailer has successfully used green powder coating to make trolleys identifiable and less attractive to scrap dealers. Perimeter Bollards and Barriers: Physical deterrents are used in some locations to prevent trolleys from leaving premises. Customer Feedback: Retailers regularly gather in-store feedback to assess customer acceptance of new trolley designs and approaches to reducing losses. #5. Collaboration and Law Enforcement Retailers are increasingly working with local councils and police to address trolley theft, especially in areas with high homelessness or organized crime. Some are advocating for stronger enforcement of existing laws against trolley removal and better coordination with scrap yards. Moving Forward Despite the diversity of approaches, one theme is clear: there is no silver bullet. Retailers must adopt a tailored, multi-pronged strategy based on store location, customer demographics, and operational capacity. Collaboration across the industry, investment in innovation, and a cultural shift toward valuing trolleys as critical assets are essential steps forward. Retailers interested in addressing trolley loss should begin by auditing their current fleet, identifying high-risk locations, and piloting a mix of interventions. Sharing data and best practices across the sector will be key to developing scalable, cost-effective solutions. If you would like to join our working group on trolleys and other loss prevention topics, please click here and sign into our online meetings.

Markdowns: Twenty Questions For Your Business.

Each year, the food waste working group organise a meeting around markdowns and the different ways that the retailers in the group are looking to iterate, evolve and explore new approaches to the discounting of surplus food close to its expiry date. To help guide the conversation, retailers shared where they believed their business scored on the markdown maturity model that emerged from our research on the exiting of surplus and unsold food, authored by Professor Akkas. Click here to access the research Based on the meeting discussion, twenty strategic, operational, and reflective questions emerged. Twenty questions that retailers could take back to their business, to help their business assess and evolve their markdown and food surplus management strategy and practices. They are as follows. Strategic Questions #1. What is our overarching goal with markdowns? Are we primarily focused on reducing food waste, maximising profit, improving customer satisfaction, or a balanced combination of these? For most retailers, it will be a "it depends" answer, so given that, how, and who in the business decides the order of priority [given they can be conflicting]? #2. Where do we currently sit on the markdown maturity model? Are we in the early stages with fixed markdowns, or are we leveraging dynamic pricing and AI-driven solutions? #3. How do markdowns align with our broader sustainability and waste reduction goals? Are markdowns integrated into our ESG strategy, and how do they contribute to our net-zero or food waste targets? #4. Should we invest in building in-house AI capabilities or partner with external vendors? What are the trade-offs in terms of transparency, speed, cost, control, and innovation? Operational Questions #5. How effective is our current markdown strategy? Do we have data showing the impact of markdowns on waste reduction, profit margins, labour / productivity and customer behaviour? #6. Are we using the right discount levels and timing? Could we benefit from a tiered or dynamic markdown approach (e.g., 25%, 40%, 70%) based on real-time POS data? #7. How do we ensure markdown compliance and execution in stores? Are store teams consistently applying markdowns, and do we have visibility into markdown vs. write-off ratios? #8. What role does technology play in our markdown process? Are we using electronic shelf labels (ESLs), shelf cameras, or AI to automate and optimise markdowns? #9. How do we manage markdowns across different product categories? Should we tailor strategies for bakery, dairy, meat, and produce based on shelf life, demand elasticity, and customer preferences? #10. Are we leveraging alternative channels for surplus food? Could we expand or improve our use of mixed bags, surprise boxes, or third-party platforms like Too Good To Go, Gander or Flashfood? And the many others. Customer and Market Questions #11. How do customers perceive our markdowns? Are markdowns seen as a value-add or a sign of poor quality? How can we improve communication and visibility? #12. Are we cannibalising full-price sales with markdowns? Do we understand the impact of markdowns on overall category performance and customer switching behaviour? To what extent does the location display of markdowns determine the extent of "trading down" from full to a discounted price? #13. How do markdowns influence customer loyalty and shopping patterns? Are markdown shoppers more likely to return, or are they opportunistic buyers? To what extent do markdowns promote loyalty? Data and Measurement Questions #14. What KPIs are we using to measure markdown effectiveness? Are we tracking sell-through rates, waste reduction, margin retention, and customer satisfaction? #15. Do we have the right data infrastructure to support advanced markdown strategies? Are our systems integrated across inventory, pricing, and sales to enable real-time decision-making? #16. How do we validate the performance of AI or algorithmic markdown tools? Are we running controlled experiments or A/B tests to ensure these tools are delivering the intended outcomes? Forward-Looking and Innovation Questions #17. What’s next on our markdown innovation roadmap? Are we exploring autonomous markdowns, predictive analytics, or integration with supply chain forecasting? #18. How can we better collaborate across departments and with external partners? Could we co-develop solutions with academia, tech providers, or other retailers? #19. What are the barriers to scaling our markdown innovations? Are there regulatory, operational, or cultural challenges we need to address? #20. How do we ensure our markdown strategy remains agile and responsive to change? Are we set up to continuously learn, iterate, and adapt based on new insights and technologies? If you would like to join this retailer and producer only working group, click here to view the landing page and then sign up to our next meeting.

Fix Broken Inventory Records to Grow Sales by 11%

Previous ECR Retail Loss research (click here) with a sample of eight retailers revealed that sales could grow by 4-8% when wrong inventory records were corrected and made accurate. In a follow-on study, the academic team looked at just one of those retailers in more depth to reveal new insights and outcomes from fixing wrong records. This new leg of the work studied data from 11 stores of a major UK grocery retailer with over 24,000 SKUs. The key findings and insights are as follows. 1. Prevalence and Nature of IRI The study finds that approximately 65% of SKUs suffer from Inventory Record Inaccuracy (IRI) with a median discrepancy of +4 units for overreported items and -3 units for underreported ones. It found that negative IRI (where system inventory exceeds actual inventory) is more common and more damaging, as it leads to stockouts and missed sales opportunities. 2. Drivers of IRI Four main operational factors were identified as significant drivers of IRI: Average Inventory Level: Higher stock levels are strongly associated with greater IRI, likely due to increased complexity in shelf management and backroom storage. Restocking Frequency: More frequent replenishments correlate with higher IRI, as they introduce more opportunities for errors. Perishability: Perishable items are more prone to IRI due to their shorter shelf lives, need for FIFO rotation, and frequent markdowns or removals. Promotional Activity: Contrary to expectations, promotional items exhibit lower IRI. This is attributed to the increased scrutiny and operational oversight during promotional periods. 3. Impact of Audits on Sales A quasi-experimental study comparing two matched stores—one undergoing a full inventory audit and one not—revealed that audits led to an 11% increase in store-wide sales over the following two months. However, this uplift was not uniform: Sales Gains Concentrated on Negative IRI Items: Only items with negative IRI saw significant sales increases post-audit. Items with positive IRI or accurate records showed no meaningful change. 4. Strategic Implications for Retailers Reframe Audits as Revenue Drivers: Rather than viewing stock audits as a cost, retailers should consider them a strategic tool to boost sales, especially for perishable and high-risk items. Targeted Auditing: Full-store audits may not be necessary. Retailers can achieve similar benefits by focusing audits on SKUs with high IRI risk—particularly perishable items and those with frequent restocking. Data-Driven Audit Scheduling: Is there an opportunity to use historical IRI patterns and machine learning to help predict when and where inaccuracies are likely to occur? Could this then enable more efficient audit schedules? This is currently being explored with new research that will be published in 2025. Click here to learn more about this research. This research was commissioned by the IRI working group, if you are a retailer or CPG and would like to know more and to participate in future working group meetings or just read more about our research and blogs, click here. Finally, if you would like to access the full (43 pages) academic paper, please click here

1of4

ECR Retail Loss is a global collaboration between retailers, suppliers and academics, working together to better understand and manage the causes of retail loss..

Our community includes 400+ of the biggest global retailers (our current Board members are from Aholddelhaize, Nike, Next, and Tesco) alongside consumer goods manufacturers, academics and researchers. Together, we explore practical ways to reduce shrink, fraud, food waste and other preventable losses across all channels.

Through regular working group meetings, peer-led research, benchmarks and reports, we support loss prevention professionals, asset protection, store teams, and retail leaders in making smarter decisions to reduce shrink, protect assets, and meet rising expectations from customers and stakeholders.

Real world insights influence everything we do to support your teams, stores and operations. From preventing theft to improving inventory accuracy.

Our eight priority areas are set by our members.

Video in Retail: the evolving role of surveillance, AI and analytics in deterring crime
Food Waste and markdowns: reducing preventable waste and aligning shrink reduction with sustainability goals
E-commerce Loss: tackling fraud, returns abuse and delivery risk in online retail
Inventory Accuracy: why better stock data reduces shrink, improves margins and builds trust
On-Shelf Availability: ensuring products are where they should be, when customers want them
Self Checkout: balancing customer experience with effective loss prevention at SCO
RFID in Retail: using real-time data to track goods, reduce shrink, and improve replenishment
Retail Loss, Safety and Security: protecting people, products and profits in an age of rising threats

We help you sell more and lose less by tackling every major form of retail loss:

Shoplifting, employee theft, internal fraud, external threats
Returns abuse, self-checkout manipulation, operational errors
POS system mistakes, stock inaccuracies, spoilage and waste
Supplier fraud, delivery discrepancies, vandalism, and more

We share actionable strategies to prevent loss, strengthen store safety, and improve visibility across all retail operations. That includes smarter loss prevention protocols, upgraded security cameras, AI, facial recognition and POS systems, real-time RFID tracking, enhanced EAS tagging, updated policies and processes and practical training programmes.

And thanks to the funding from our research grant providers, all of our research, insights and meetings are offered to the retail industry for free.