S1 Ep 30
Retail Security Officers - Invest in People not Presence
This week, Colin Peacock and Professor Emmeline Taylor discuss the evolving role of retail security officers.
And how training, integration, and investment can significantly enhance their impact - to reduce losses.
Drawing on insights from over 70 retailers and expert presentations, the discussion highlights the importance of moving beyond a more procurement-based view of hourly guarding towards one where security officers provide multiple benefits with clear KPI’s.
From customer service to crime deterrence, the pair conclude that the right training and support can transform the role of security officers into a central part of store safety and performance.
Podcast summary
Professor Emmeline Taylor joins host Colin Peacock to reflect on a recent ECR Retail Loss meeting focused on retail security officers and how retailers can get the best value from their guarding provision.
They discuss why offenders still see security officers as the number one deterrent, but only when those officers are properly trained, equipped and integrated into store teams.
The conversation covers different operating models, the limits of “training your way out” of problems, and the importance of moving from a low-cost, hours-based approach to one centred on capabilities and retention.
For retailers and loss prevention teams, it highlights how investing in security officers as part of a broader strategy can significantly improve safety, shrink outcomes and staff engagement.
Cleaned transcript
COLIN:
This week I’m joined by Professor Emmeline Taylor.
We’re going to be reflecting on a meeting about retail security officers – or guards – and the relevance of training, and how retailers are getting the best out of their security guarding provision.
Recent ECR meeting on retail security officers
COLIN:
We had a meeting about two weeks ago, and the theme was around security guards.
We’ll come on to whether they should be called security guards or security officers.
We had about 70 people there.
It followed a previous meeting about six months earlier.
Then, we learned that 40% of retailers were saying they did not provide extra training for their security officers.
For this new meeting we had an academic, Professor Martin Gill, and one of the retailers sharing how they went about training their retail security officers.
They had quite an extensive programme that delivered some pretty remarkable results.
We then had a really great discussion, and you were part of that.
You sat through it all, writing copious notes.
As you distil those down, what were the key findings you think those who could not attend should take away and think about?
EMMELINE:
I think what was really fascinating is that we started with the premise that offenders still believe that security officers – officers, not guards – are the number one concern when they’re targeting a store.
But it’s not just a case of putting a uniformed officer at the front of the store.
It’s what they do.
That came through very strongly from the retailers as well.
You have to invest in these security officers.
You have to integrate them into the team.
I think that was the real crux of it.
How do you integrate them?
How do you make them feel loved, I guess?
Training became quite a big theme.
Do you do it internally?
Do you have external training?
What equipment do you give these officers?
There were some really great insights about techniques that retailers are using to enhance that.
COLIN:
Often they don’t really get given a description of what a good job looks like.
It’s just: go and stand there, see what happens, and stop wrong ’uns.
You’re absolutely right, that did come through loud and clear.
They need to be part of the team and need to feel supported.
Different roles and deployment models for retail security officers
EMMELINE:
Definitely.
There was also a lot of discussion around the different roles that security officers can play.
Whether they’re tactical and undercover.
Whether they meet and greet people as they come into the store.
Whether they’re expected to try and detain people.
There was a real variation: are they mobile, or are they always allocated to the same store where they get to know the team?
So again, some very different approaches.
Procurement, cost and capabilities
COLIN:
This is critical as well, Emmeline, because often the people making decisions about employing security officers are the procurement team.
I’m not sure I’m ever convinced that procurement teams understand these subtleties when what they’re looking to do is get as many hours at the lowest price.
Some of these subtleties – the training, the different roles – are not easy to boil down to a commodity, which is what procurement tends to do.
EMMELINE:
I think you’re absolutely right.
We so often still hear guarding talked about in terms of hours rather than capabilities.
Shifting the dial on that is really important.
Can you ‘train your way out’ of the problem?
COLIN:
What else did you pick up on?
EMMELINE:
We had quite a lengthy debate.
Somebody said that you can’t train your way out of a problem.
We talked about this at length – whether you can, whether you can’t, whether it’s about the quality of that appointment.
There were really mixed feelings about this.
What did you take away from that statement?
COLIN:
I think it goes back to the point about what you need security guards or security officers for.
What is their role?
What is their work?
How do they interact with the stores and help to make stores safer?
You can’t just do that with a security officer alone.
There needs to be much more:
– a culture
– the design and layout of the store
– many other things.
You can’t just apply a security officer and hope that your safety suddenly improves or your shrink goes down.
I think that’s what Martin was saying.
You need to have a strategy first, and then a security officer can support that strategy in the way you think most appropriate.
That’s what I took away.
Equipment and investment
EMMELINE:
Definitely.
We also had some conversations, beyond store layout and those aspects, around the equipment that security officers are now given.
Again, there’s a huge amount of variance:
– whether they have headsets
– whether they’re stood at a podium with a computer
– whether they have body‑worn cameras.
It comes down to that investment and then, of course, the training to be able to use that equipment in the most effective way.
COLIN:
The case study was really good around the benefits of training.
They had some interesting metrics.
On the negative side, they showed fewer complaints about security officers, which had virtually disappeared.
They were also looking at reductions in preventable incidents.
They had a way of measuring engagement around some internal tools, including one particularly about feedback.
A really key metric was about retention.
Retention and continuity
EMMELINE:
Definitely.
What you don’t want is a different security officer every single day in a store.
When you can improve retention, you can get much better results, rather than it being random and even subcontracted security officers.
COLIN:
I think that’s where that investment in the individual really comes in.
You show that you want to integrate them and see them as part of the solution, rather than just an add‑on.
So often they’re viewed as almost the one to take the punches when things get a bit nasty.
I think we need to move away from that view of what a security officer actually is.
When done well, security officers are key deterrents
COLIN:
I loved the comment from one of the retailers at the end.
They said that when done well – and it goes back to your original point – security officers are the key to making stores safer.
When done well, it means they’re integrated.
They’re trained.
They know how to deal with customer service.
They know how to deal with all the equipment that is often put on products.
They know the full scenario of what goes wrong.
They know the store.
They know the bad ones.
They know the preventive offenders.
The role of a great security officer, when done well, is possibly the number one deterrent for offenders.
Pretty powerful stuff.
EMMELINE:
Very powerful, definitely.
We do lose sight of it.
COLIN:
They’ve certainly got more equipment.
We talked about body‑worn cameras coming in, uniforms changing.
We had some Americans on the call.
I think guns are…
Differences between UK and US models
EMMELINE:
That’s interesting, isn’t it?
In the US, there’s a lot of off‑duty police officers recruited as security guards.
You have armed ones or those with pepper spray.
There’s a real differentiation there between the powers that security officers have in the UK, which essentially are like any citizen.
They can do a citizen’s arrest, but they don’t have anything additional.
I wonder if we’re going to move towards a more universal model around what those powers can be as we move more into private security.
COLIN:
We’d seen some interesting work earlier in the year around community guards and how you involve the community.
There have been several discussions around that.
That’s very different from, say, in America, where you’ve got an off‑duty policeman.
They’re not necessarily trained in customer service, last time I looked.
EMMELINE:
A very different type of customer, I think, typically.
COLIN:
Yes, let alone knowing the community and all the rest of it.
Future work on retail security officers
COLIN:
That’s fascinating.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write down those notes and for supporting that meeting.
I know that security guards will…
I keep on saying it.
There should be a pound for every time.
EMMELINE:
We’re going to fine you every time you say guards, I think.
COLIN:
Yes. Security officers.
We’ll look again at what innovations are taking place around that business model, the thinking, the training.
That will be in June 2025.
It’s a great area for collaboration and joint sharing of knowledge.
EMMELINE:
As always. Thanks, Colin.
COLIN:
Thank you very much. Bye‑bye.
Thank you again.
