ACADEMIC VIEWPOINT
2010 National Retail Security Survey Executive Summary T
he final report of the 2010 National Retail Security Survey (NRSS) recently has been released in its nineteenth edition and has been posted on the web. This column is an executive summary of the major findings of this report. This year, despite the fact that we are still mired in sluggish economic times, we can proudly report that 140 retail corporations sent in questionnaires. Not all surveys were fully completed, which caused some missing data problems. However, this response level includes 40 more firms than participated last year. This study would not be in
The financial losses inflicted on the retail industry remain even more significant in their size and scope. One only can speculate how much more profitable this industry could be if these many sources of inventory shrinkage and other forms of financial loss could be significantly reduced. its nineteenth year of reporting retail loss prevention statistics if it were not for the many loss prevention executives, directors, and managers who believe in the importance of this research effort and support it annually. For this we are quite appreciative. While the data are reported anonymously, we can assure the reader that the 140 corporations that have responded to our survey represent the vast majority of the top 100
24
by Richard C. Hollinger, Ph.D. Dr. Hollinger is a professor in the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society at the University of Florida, Gainesville. He is also director of the Security Research Project, which annually conducts the National Retail Security Survey (www.crim.ufl.edu/srp/srp.htm). Dr. Hollinger can be reached at rhollin@ufl.edu or 352-392-0265 x230. © 2011 Richard C. Hollinger
major retailers in the country. We believe that a good deal of this 40-company increase over last year’s response is due in part to the decision to convert the questionnaire from paper-and-pencil survey to an online format. If you are a regular reader of our report, you already know that there are always more similarities in the NRSS findings from year to year than differences. This is to be expected in a stable, mature industry that does not fluctuate dramatically in its loss prevention practices and asset protection procedures. However, there are some notable differences in this survey from the previous year’s results. Overall Shrink Rate. This year the overall inventory shrinkage rate of 1.49 percent was somewhat higher than reported in last year’s survey. Despite this slight increase, the reader should note that over the past few years, inventory shrinkage continues to remain at the very lowest levels observed in the nearly two-decade history of this survey. We believe that this is remarkably good news and demonstrates clear and consistent progress in the war on reducing retail losses in spite of the present economic slump and the threat of organized retail crime (ORC). The news is not all good, however. Although the shrinkage percentages are at significantly lower levels than observed during the very early years of the survey, the dollar value that this loss represents continues to remain at record levels due largely to an increase in U.S. gross retail sales. In other words, this huge $35-billion dollar loss is largely the result of moderate growth in the retail economy, not significant increases in inventory shrinkage percentages. High-Shrink Segments. Supermarket/grocery stores, off-price/outlet stores, furniture, specialty accessories, men’s and women’s apparel, and discount stores all reported significantly higher than average shrinkage levels. This is largely due to the especially high desirability of merchandise sold in these particular chains, which makes theft much more attractive to organized retail gangs, amateur shoplifters, and employees. Low-Shrink Categories. Alternatively, the lowest shrinkage stores—auto parts, tires, and accessories; women’s apparel; drug store/pharmacy; books, magazines, and music; department stores; sporting goods and recreational products; home center, hardware, lumber, and garden; household furnishings and housewares;
November - December 2011
continued on page 26 |
LPPortaL.com
