Most at-Risk Stores: How to Engage Others in a Cross-Function Risk Mitigation Strategy

Elevated criminal risks in and around bricks and mortar stores can make it difficult to operate safely and profitably in some locations. The report, Fortress Stores: Keeping the Most at-Risk Stores Trading, did an excellent job of documenting the many and varied issues including violence, verbal abuse, theft, organised retail crime, and anti-social behaviour. The report identified seven strategic risk mitigation principles to underpin loss prevention / asset protection strategy and presented a benchmarking tool to assess progress.

At ECR Retail Loss, we saw great value in this tool and have supported its further development and refinement. The guide published here presents the updated tool and guidance for completing the exercise. It has undergone rigorous testing with retailers and we are delighted with the result. We firmly believe it should be built into the business annual planning cycle.

As outlined in the guidance, I urge you to complete the benchmarking exercise with representatives from different functions and levels of seniority in your business. As Prof. Taylor outlines, ‘the tool is designed to disrupt and inform company-wide thinking’ – it’s simple in its design and application yet powerful in its potential to leverage engagement and support across the business for delivering innovative strategies to combat risk. We have seen some impressive results and tangible outcomes from the pilots so far.

On behalf of ECR Retail Loss, I would like to thank Prof. Emmeline Taylor for developing this exercise and its contribution to the loss prevention / asset protection community. As with all projects undertaken on behalf of ECR Retail Loss, it would not be possible without the active support and involvement of the retail community and the many individuals who generously gave their time to participate in the workshops and run pilots of the tool. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences – by working together we are much more likely to Sell More and Lose Less! Finally, can I encourage you to not only engage with this exercise and the linked research, but also take part in the work of ECR Retail Loss – further details can be found at: www.ecrloss.com.

"We went into it thinking we’d all score the same and were very surprised by some of the results. We’re now having the conversations internally that we didn’t know we needed to have" (Retailer A, UK)

The Fortress Stores report highlighted the need for businesses to do things differently in their most at-risk stores, but this is not without challenge. To keep trading safely and profitably, bold decisions and actions are required with support from and across multiple functions.

The report Fortress Stores: Keeping the Most at Risk Stores Trading was published in 2023. The international project focused on outlining the strategies being deployed to mitigate the risk posed by criminal activity. The project focused on ‘most at-risk stores’, i.e., those locations that occupy the highest level of concern for businesses. These stores are characterised by frequent incidents of violence, theft, and antisocial behaviour as well as being impacted by a range of social issues, such as homelessness and drug misuse, which present additional layers of operational risk and complexity. Given the elevated risks, some businesses have responded with reactive, scattergun, or even defeatist (permanently shuttering stores) approaches to LP/AP. Whereas those adopting a more proactive, inclusive, and ‘whole of business’ approach to risk mitigation are able to navigate the challenging headwinds more successfully.

The original report has been well-read across the asset protection / loss prevention community internationally but the audience for a comprehensive risk mitigation strategy, particularly during times of elevated criminality, must reach beyond those who are already well-versed in matters relating to crime. The tool presented here is designed to disrupt and inform company-wide thinking. It intends to better involve and integrate different functions of the business into seeing how they can each contribute towards identifying and tackling vulnerabilities. In doing so, it seeks to identify misconceptions, challenge the status quo and provide a structured way to discuss retail risk.

"We used the benchmarking exercise across different business functions. It was great to see where we are all aligned and highlight the areas that we need to focus on in the coming year" (Retailer A, UK)

"The exercise prompted some really interesting discussion. The biggest thing we learned was about perception – what people think versus what we presume they think" (Retailer D, UK)

By using this tool, functions beyond LP/AP are drawn into thinking about how they can meaningfully contribute to risk mitigation. The aim is to generate buy-in from teams who don’t traditionally see themselves as needing to be concerned with loss prevention, safety and security such as Merchandising, Format, Auditing and Human Resources. Many interventions required as part of a comprehensive strategy are beyond the LP sphere of control and require the involvement of cross-functional teams e.g. hiring strategies, trading hours, or investing in data analysis software. Taking a cross-functional approach to risk mitigation involves breaking down silos and generating buy-in from senior management. With this in mind, the benchmarking tool has been designed to involve different areas of the business in conversations about risk-related perception and operational realities.

The benchmarking tool is organized into 7 key strategic principles: Data, People, Control, Offenders, Guarding, Monitoring, and Joining Forces.

The benchmarking tool presents a series of statements for each of the 7 key strategic principles of the risk mitigation wheel. Although the tactics that sit within each of the principles might be different, the point is about the extent to which a business is aware of vulnerabilities, accepts the need to do things differently, aligns the different business functions, and takes appropriate and timely action.

While mainly intended for LP/AP and security/risk leaders, different functions across the business can – and should - complete the exercise. After completion, it is suggested that a meeting/ workshop is convened to discuss and compare the results. This meeting should focus on the actions that can be taken in the short, medium, and long term, as outlined in the instructions.

"There are advantages to bringing different points of view together. A good time to use the benchmarking tool would be just before goal setting for the year so you can leverage results to help prioritize areas to focus on" (Retailer B, USA)

The beneficial outcomes that can be imagined, and that were discovered through the piloting and development of the tool, include:

1. Generating focused discussion on criminal risk factors, what’s causing them and how they can be tackled. This involves a detailed assessment of how well the business identifies and understands the crime and security risk in and around each store (e.g. the MO used for theft (such as pushouts or stealing at the SCO) and whether offenders are stealing for resale or own use). The diagnosis needs to move beyond knowing that incidents/losses are occurring to knowing who, how, when and why. Having an accurate assessment of the threat is the first step in any risk mitigation strategy.

2. Highlighting where strategic intent might differ from operational reality. The Fortress Stores project revealed a disconnect between what senior leaders thought was happening in stores and the reality of daily operations. There were many examples of poorly executed security solutions and non-compliance. Understanding why this is the case is paramount to ensuring that investments produce the desired outcomes.

3. Inspiring improvement efforts. The tool can highlight where participants believe there is room for improvement. This doesn’t have to mean capital expenditure but could rather be a change in operational practice. Some of these changes will sit beyond the LP sphere of control and require the involvement of cross-functional teams such as Human Resources, Marketing and/or Buying.

4. Providing a framework to foster innovation. The exercise can result in support for a pipeline of trials / new investments to be agreed and committed to across the business. By taking a ‘whole of business’ approach to loss prevention and risk mitigation, the relevance and centrality of the LP/AP function is enhanced.

"The exercise worked well to start conversations. It was good to have an open and honest discussion about the principles and what we thought about our security. The tool helped us to get the results we intended" (Retailer C, Netherlands)

"The tool led us to consider how we can improve our business cases to drive alignment across multiple layers of leadership" (Retailer B, USA)

1. Identify who will complete the exercise

The process requires engagement from different functions and levels of seniority. Choose representatives from across the business who you want to complete the benchmarking exercise.

1. Nominate a Team Leader

The Team Leader is responsible for distributing materials, compiling results, and convening the benchmarking meeting.

1. Distribute materials and set a deadline

• A PDF of the benchmarking tool can be found in Appendix A but you might find it easier to distribute an electronic copy in the form of an excel file. This can be downloaded by clicking the icon below.

• For some guidance on the ratings, you will find In Appendix C more detail on each of the dimensions that can help you with the ranking work.

• Once distributed, we advise you set a deadline to complete the tools and return the results (e.g. a week)

1. Colleagues complete the benchmarking tool and return the results

• Colleagues should complete the benchmarking tool from their own perspective and experience. They should complete it on their own and not in discussion with the other participants at this stage.

• Results to be returned to the nominated Team Leader who will collate the results and enter them onto one master MS Excel document to automatically generate average scores and tables.

1. Convene a meeting/workshop to discuss the results (suggested discussion points below):

•Arrange a meeting/workshop to discuss the results (1 hour should be sufficient). Each participant should bring a copy of their own results.

• The meeting/workshop should be structured by the 7 principles. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers; where there are discrepancies in views this is where the most fruitful discussion should materialise.

• If you would like support in facilitating the workshops, please contact colin@ecrloss.com

NOTE: Discussion points could include:

Q1. Can you outline how you reached the score that you gave for each category?

Q2. What effective risk mitigation strategies/techniques are in place in the business?

Q3. Where do you think the business could improve in terms of risk mitigation?

Q4. What would it take to improve the score e.g. from a ‘1’ to a ‘3’ and what level of investment and company buy-in might this require?

Q5. On which risk mitigation principle do you think the business is performing best?

Q6. On which risk mitigation principle do you think the business needs the most improvement?

Q7. How well aligned do you think the different functions of the business are in supporting a loss prevention / security agenda?

1. Agree an action list

The meeting should have tangible outcomes. These could include (but are not limited to):

• Taking immediate action to address a gap that the benchmarking tool revealed or confirmed.

• Sharing the results with senior managers / the board to highlight the “gaps” identified across the 7 strategic principles

• Further exploration and scoping to better understand which factors heighten or lower risk in most at-risk stores. This could start with the commitment to a series of cross-function store visits.

Welcome to the Most at risk Stores Benchmarking Tool. Detailed below a series of statements relating to the 7 key strategic principles of the risk mitigation wheel. Using the scale 0-3 outlined below please rank your business’ performance against each of the statements.

You may find it useful to review your performance over time by completing the benchmarking tool periodically.

• Awareness: To what extent is the business aware of the specific risks that are present?

• Acceptance: To what extent does the business accept that special measures are required to manage the heightened risks in the most at risk stores?

• Alignment: To what extent has the business shifted practice in most-at-risk stores to align with the security needs, particularly when this presents tensions with the overarching company brand and/or policy deployed elsewhere in the estate?

• Actions: To what extent is the business supporting and investing in concrete actions to mitigate risks in the most-at-risk stores?

3 = My company is performing well on this principle

2 = My company is performing okay, but more needs to be done

1 = Some evidence of progress on this principle, but at a low level

0 = Progress on this principle is very limited within our company

The benchmarking tool has been developed and refined following engagement with the industry. Demonstrations to LP professionals, presentations at trade shows and conferences, and dedicated workshops have been used to road-test it. Following the feedback from these consultant-led sessions, an additional four individual businesses, representing major household brands in the USA, the Netherlands, and the UK were invited to run the exercise in-house. Below is an overview of their real-world experience of completing the benchmarking tool.

A major retailer in the USA trialled the exercise in April 2024. They remarked that all 7 principles were ‘relevant and important’ to them. They ran the exercise across different functions of the business acknowledging that there ‘are advantages to exploring different points of view.’ Following the exercise, the group were keen to repeat it ‘just before goal setting for the year’ so that they could ‘leverage results to help prioritize focus areas.’ Rather than a one-off exercise, it was seen as having an ongoing role to play in:

1. setting goals,

2. prioritizing areas for strategic attention and investment and

3. monitoring progress against the 7 principles.

This business invited Senior Leadership to complete the exercise to ensure that their perspective of in-store operational reality matched that of other functions and levels of seniority.

‘We wanted the tool to be filled in by different departments so we could identify different perspectives’ the Head of Security at this major retailer explained. The main benefit of the exercise was that it ‘generated conversations about security’. The variation in responses was not expected and ‘it worked well to start conversations that revealed why there were differences in opinion.’ The team reported that the tool was ‘easy to complete’ and ‘the length of the tool was good.’ Overall, this retailer’s experience was that ‘the participants had a meaningful conversation with each other about the security. It was good to have an open and honest conversation about the principles and what we thought about our security approach. The tool helped us to get to the results we intended to get.’

In the UK, the tool was completed by two major national brands.

Retailer 1 explained that they expected everyone completing it to be fully aligned in how the business was performing against the principles. They described a tight and closely aligned team that incorporated the views of many functions across the business. As they outlined, ‘we went into it thinking we’d all score the same and were very surprised by some of the results. We’re now having the conversations internally that we didn’t know we needed to have’. Highlighting these areas of divergence, particularly when the presumption is that ‘everyone is on the same page’, is the key intention of the benchmarking tool.

Retailer 2 highlighted this point also, stating ‘the biggest thing we learned was about perception – finding out what people think versus what we presume they think’. This retailer used the tool across different business functions. Like the business in the USA, they reported how it could inform future planning and focus: ‘It was great to see where we are all aligned and highlight the areas that we need to focus on in the coming year’.

To assist with the completion of the benchmarking tool, provided below are descriptions of what good might look like. These examples have been inspired by practices observed during the international research. However, specific solutions are not prescriptive due to different cultural and legal contexts internationally.

If these broad descriptors sound like your company, it is likely that you will be scoring 2s and 3s in the benchmarking exercise. If the activities in your company in no way reflect these scenarios, then you will most likely be scoring 1s or even 0s on the scale.

Those scoring 3 on this principle accept that they need to collect, analyse, and model comprehensive incident data to understand risks in and around stores. Data provides the backdrop for all discussions about risk and security and to inform decision-making. It is universally collected and analysed across the estate to allow most at-risk stores to be identified and tracked. The business seeks to gain comprehensive information about incidents occurring in store, as well as in the wider location and community, and accepts that this takes investment and resource. There is a high level of trust in the data, from the C-suite to the shop floor, and confidence that it is credible and reliable. Below are several more specific ways in which data is supported, collated, and used.

Incident reporting. To improve the level and quality of reporting by store associates the company will have undertaken several initiatives. These could include:

• providing training to store associates on how and when to report different incident types to law enforcement e.g., ‘theft’ vs ‘robbery’.

• actively promoting the reporting of incidents, including providing employees with ‘time back’ for reporting, streamlining the internal reporting process, aligning internal reporting systems to ensure that data and intelligence are compatible with police systems, acknowledging good reporting practices, and introducing feedback loops.

• issuing employees with portable devices for reporting ‘in-aisle’ as well as desk-top computers for more sensitive information (e.g., reporting internal theft). Data Management. The company is clear on data-sharing requirements and obligations, and ensures all staff are trained to know when and how data can be shared, with whom, and in what format. Robust data hygiene is a priority, and regular checks are made. There is a named role in the central team responsible for quality assurance and identifying anomalies in reporting practices to iron out inconsistencies. Risk modelling. The company has a risk model using both internal data (e.g., value/volume of incidents, violence, HR data) and external data (e.g., police recorded crime and indices of deprivation). Risk and other analytical models are made accessible to different functions across the business and are used regularly to inform decisions e.g., new sites and acquisitions, trading hours, merchandise assortment, staffing (ensuring that experienced staff are rostered alongside less experienced staff), and guarding provision.

The business has used the model to identify most at-risk stores which are scrutinised to identify what ‘special measures’ are required e.g. guarding, training, revised trading hours, etc. The model is reviewed and updated regularly.

Storytelling. The company recognises the power of data in many ways, but one of the more innovative is in its ability to be translated from numbers in spreadsheets to ‘stories’ about the nature and severity of issues impacting on the business. Developing narratives from the data to explain why, when, and how crimes are occurring has resulted in several benefits e.g., employees feel reassured that the company understands the ‘lived experience’ of staff on the shop floor in most-at-risk stores. Greater acknowledgement and support have also been leveraged from law enforcement and government by bringing to life crime issues.

Businesses scoring 3 on the ‘people’ principle are aware and accept that they need to do things differently in most-at-risk stores to ensure that employees feel invested in, listened to, protected, and provided with the right skillsets through meaningful training, incentives/rewards, and career development opportunities. Recognising that experienced and trained staff are one of the most important aspects of tackling risk, the company has invested in its people in several ways, which could include the following areas:

Recruitment and retention strategy. The recruitment strategy for most at-risk stores seeks to attract employees from other industries (e.g., hospitality and the nighttime economy). New recruits are made aware that ‘crime and risk management’ will be an integral aspect of their role and that they will be trained accordingly. Incremental rewards are given to employees as they achieve milestones in training and customer service to encourage retention and operational excellence.

Equipment. Devices and equipment have been invested in to support staff and alleviate safety concerns. This includes headsets to enable staff to quickly communicate with each other and the guarding team, body-worn cameras for public-facing employees, and portable handheld devices that can be used for ‘in-aisle’ reporting of incidents as well as a mobile-POS.

Training. The company are rolling out bespoke training on a range of topics e.g., de-escalation in their most-at-risk stores. Training is in-person and mandatory for all public-facing employees working in most at-risk stores to participate.

Enhanced safety measures. The company has initiated a programme of enhanced safety measures in its most-at-risk stores. This includes the option for subsidised transport to/from the store for employees who work early morning/late evening shifts and a ‘minimum 2 person’ policy. for opening and closing the store.

Businesses scoring 3 on this principle are making a concerted effort to exert heightened levels of control over every possible aspect of the most at-risk stores operation, even when this creates tension with brand proposition and customer service e.g., adding friction for honest customers. Using a mix of technology, design, and operational strategies, the business is taking control by making changes to the following:

Trading hours. The business recognises that trading at certain times presents more risk. This might be due to major cultural or sporting events, civil unrest, the operating hours of other businesses in the locale, or simply time of day. Stores categorised as most-at-risk can be agile in adapting their trading hours to mitigate heightened risks. Other techniques of control are used in conjunction with modifying trading hours e.g., the first and last hour of trading are further controlled by limiting the number of customers that are permitted in store at any one time.

Store design. The business recognises that most-at-risk stores require more robust target hardening measures than other stores. Most at-risk stores are (re)configured to make it harder to steal and get away e.g., one way in and out systems, automated entry/exit gates, smart shelves, screening high risk zones e.g., protecting kiosks selling high value/desirable goods such as cigarettes. Where appropriate for the format, a ‘store-within-store’ design has been introduced for higher value categories e.g., health and beauty and alcohol.

Merchandise assortment and display. The business accepts that most at-risk stores might need to stock fewer lines. The business takes action to adjust the assortment and display of merchandise that attracts high levels of theft in most at-risk stores. To ensure strategic alignment, different functions of the business (e.g., store design team, merchandising and loss prevention functions) consult one another on the approach to stocking, displaying, and securing high theft lines.

Operation. The business has taken action to limit vulnerability across operations that are known to be correlated with risk. For example, in most-at-risk stores self-checkout kiosks have additional security measures (e.g., a higher staff to kiosk ratio or increased checks) or they are not offered as part of most at-risk stores operation.

Businesses that score 3 on this principle are increasing their awareness of offender’s characteristics and tactics and aligning their risk mitigation strategies to match them. This includes trialling new technologies (where feasible and possible) and strategies to:

Understand offender characteristics. The business is aware of different categories of offenders (e.g., opportunistic, drug-affected, organised), the methods they typically deploy, and ways to deter and/or detect them. The business has established a team to focus on prolific and/or travelling offenders to build up evidence of their activity and support law enforcement to apprehend them.

Reduce anonymity of offenders. The company is aware that taking steps to reduce anonymity can deter some offenders. Persistent offenders are targeted by deploying technologies such as automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), CCTV in car parking lots, facial matching in most at-risk stores, as well as increased guardianship provided by store associates and guards.

Increase the effort of offenders. The business is aware that increasing the effort that offenders have to go to can reduce crime. Action is being taken in most at-risk stores by installing ‘anti- sweep’ shelving, slow motion product pusher mechanisms, pegboard hook locks, and anti-theft hooks. Automated alarms alert security staff when multiple items are removed in quick succession. Having identified shopping cart ‘push outs’ at the emergency exits as a growing trend in some locations, the company have invested in shopping cart containment devices to make it harder for offenders to leave the store without paying.

Deny Benefit. The business has visibility of the stolen goods trade. It is using techniques in most- at-risk stores to deny offenders the benefits from stolen goods. This includes taking steps to dramatically reduce the product’s resale value such as deploying ink tags, forensic asset tagging, and labels.

Tracking. Information on repeat and/or prolific offenders is gathered and tracked. This might be through, for example, ORCAs in the USA. Intelligence is gathered that enables the details of repeat offenders to be compiled and passed to law enforcement to support prosecution.

Those scoring 3 on this principle are aware, and accept, that for most-at-risk stores, thinking beyond the traditional security guard provision can present new and innovative ways to manage risk. They take steps to ensure security guards are well-trained, integrated into the store team, and engaged with the issues in most at-risk stores and actively seek to be part of the solution. They might be doing some of the following:

Integrating and aligning the guarding provision. The company recognises that to be effective, the guarding provision needs to feel like a strategic ally to the store and be treated as part of the team. This includes being included in team meetings/briefings, huddles, and be provided with facilities in line with other employees e.g., locker space.

Remotely monitoring most at-risk stores. The business is building capabilities to remotely monitor the most-at-risk stores. The monitoring team can be alerted via panic alarms (both fixed panic alarms and mobile alarms on headsets and other devices) if there is an incident. The remote monitoring hub staff can call for the police, broadcast messages in store, and guide staff on what action to take. Remote operators actively identify repeat offenders and those targeting multiple stores to assist prosecution efforts.

Diversifying and tailoring the guarding approach. The business is aware that guarding has evolved and has taken steps to diversify its provision to respond to the specific issues presented by most at-risk stores. This could include, for example, partnering with non-profits to adopt community-oriented approaches to guarding. (e.g., deploying specially trained officers to assist individuals who are offending due to a specific need (i.e. homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, mental health) or adopting ‘hybrid’ models whereby security officers are trained to perform other in-store functions to improve integration and communication flows.

Businesses scoring 3 on this principle use risk modelling data (see principle 1: data) to inform decisions about the investment in new security solutions and/or strategies across the estate, ensuring intensity in most at-risk stores. They trial and monitor new approaches and solutions to identify factors that might skew its impact and effectiveness. This could include some of the following:

Controlled trials. The business is committed to conducting controlled trials before rolling out new security solutions and practices. This enables implementation difficulties and issues to be identified and addressed before deploying across the estate. Trials assess the impact of the intervention on a range of factors including losses, sales, and the additional staff resource required to implement it. The trials place an estimated ROI figure on the investment and allow informed decisions to be made.

Providing additional staff hours. The business is aware that new security interventions can require additional staffing resource and it is taking action, in alignment with HR, to ensure that this is provided in most at-risk stores to implement the strategy effectively e.g., to assist with unlocking cabinets, tagging, etc.

Compliance audits. The business has invested in staff training (see principle 2: people) and communicates the importance of the strategies being used to mitigate risk. In addition, regular compliance audits are conducted to identify when procedures are not being followed – and importantly, why. This can reveal issues such as inadequate staff hours to deploy the intervention, not enough tags for full coverage, failure to charge devices, misalignment between functions, and additional unforeseen issues created by the solution/tactic.

Established feedback channels. The business mandates regular visits to the most at risk stores to ensure that all parts of the business get the opportunity to hear feedback from store associates on the effectiveness of the interventions and report any issues experienced. This helps the business detect early signs of implementation failure so as not to skew the evaluation data. For example, visits quickly pick up on when store associates are not applying new processes or security measures correctly (e.g., not locking display cases). The robustness of monitoring data and processes provides the business with the ability to also confidently not invest in security solutions in locations where it suggests they will not make a significant difference to crime and safety.

Those scoring 3 against this strategic principle have made themselves aware of existing partnerships that are operating at local and national levels. They have been proactive in developing collaborative approaches to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in their most at-risk stores locations, recognise that it is a sector-wide issue and one that involves partnership with law enforcement, NGOs and community groups, and government agencies. This includes initiatives such as:

Data sharing with crime reduction partnerships. In most at-risk stores the business has identified and joined partnerships to share intelligence and data on known and repeat offenders. The business has entered into formal Information Sharing Agreements (ISA) with the police and other groups to safely share data. As outlined in ‘Principle 1: Data’, staff are trained to know when and how data can be shared, with whom, and in what format. There is a named person who oversees the data sharing arrangements with third parties.

Industry campaigns. The business is aware of the most pressing issues and joins other businesses in campaigns for better support, practice and/or legislation e.g., signing an open letter to support legislative reform.

Providing resource. The business is aware that effective partnership and managing relations requires resource. The Head of AP/LP, or named role, has workload and budget resources allocated to build relationships with partners and attend high level partnership meetings. Where the scale of activity requires it, there are dedicated resources provided by the business to fulfil these roles and activities e.g., Organised Retail Crime Associations (ORCAs) in the USA or Business Crime Reduction Partnerships (BCRPs) in the UK.

Integration in the community. At store level, it is apparent that most at-risk locations are embedded within the local community. The Store Manager/s is aware of the crime profile in the vicinity, knows the local law enforcement team, and is linked in with other businesses and community groups to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour as a shared issue.

The research that sits behind the development of this benchmarking tool was supported by ECR Retail Loss with an additional research grant from Cap Index. The benchmarking tool and related materials are intended for general information only. Individuals or companies are advised to take professional advice regarding their specific needs and requirements prior to taking any actions resulting from anything contained in the benchmarking tool and accompanying report. Any such actions taken by individuals or companies are entirely at their own risk. Companies are also responsible for assuring themselves that they comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including those relating to intellectual property rights, data protection and competition laws or regulations. Any images used in this document do not necessarily reflect the companies taking part in this research.

© October 2024, all rights reserved.

The development and refinement of this benchmarking tool would not have been possible without the generous input of individuals who provided comments and useful feedback throughout its development. The first iteration of the tool was initially launched to ECR Retail Loss members as part of the Fortress Stores report launch in 2023. Following this, two workshops were hosted in January 2024 in the UK with more than 15 major retailers attending and providing feedback. The tool was presented at a retail conference in Sydney, Australia in February 2024, as well as online to a USA Retail Industry Leader’s Association (RILA) working group and workshopped at a Roundtable at their annual Loss Prevention conference in Texas, USA in April 2024. In addition, 4 companies located in 3 different countries (one non-English speaking) agreed to run the exercise internally, outlining how it was received and, importantly, the outcomes it generated.

More broadly, the benchmarking tool could not have been developed without the support of the businesses that participated in the underpinning research for the report Fortress Stores: Keeping the Most at Risk Stores Trading project. I am very grateful for the engagement and enthusiasm that businesses have provided.About the Author

Professor Emmeline Taylor is a Professor of Criminology with research expertise in business-related crime and security accumulated over the last 20 years. Her research has explored a range of topics in relation to retail crime, including armed robbery, self-service checkout, violence towards shop workers, theft, new technologies, and the evaluation of law enforcement responses to crime in the retail sector. She has conducted many studies directly with offenders to learn from them how they perceive and exploit risk with a view to informing effective mitigation strategies. She has published six books including Armed Robbers (2022) and Surveillance Futures (2017). In the UK, she is Chair of the Business Reduction Partnerships (BCRP) National Standards Board, a member of the Home Office National Retail Crime Steering Group (NRCSG) chaired by the UK’s Minister for Crime and Policing, and a member of the UK Home Office’s Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) Expert Panel.

ECR Retail Loss is part of ECR Community, a voluntary and collaborative retailer-manufacturer platform with a mission to ‘fulfil consumer wishes better, faster and at less cost’. Over the last 25 years, ECR Retail Loss has acted as an independent think tank focused on creating imaginative new ways to better manage the problems of loss and on-shelf availability across the retail industry. Championing the idea of Sell More and Lose Less, it is open to any retailer and manufacturer to join. Its work is supported by research funding provided by Checkpoint Systems, NCR, Genetec, Retail Insight, and RGIS..

For further information: www.ecrloss.com.

The research commissioned by ECR Retail Loss is made possible by financial contributions from the following organisations: