Shrinkage for retailers and suppliers of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) continues to be a significant problem, one that seems resilient to ameliorative actions. In an effort to respond to the apparent failure of existing approaches to loss prevention, this chapter introduces a 'process-orientated' approach to tackling shrinkage. The approach con...
The convergence of physical stores and e-commerce has led to the emergence of a new retail business mode in the retail industry. In today’s world, new retail supply chains face the potential risks of disruption caused by natural and man-made disasters, and epidemics. In this paper, we simulate a three-stage new retail supply chain consisting of sup...
Rarely is the topic of retailing far from the top of the news agenda — not least because of the inflated role the sector now plays in the economies of countries across the world. Measures of consumer confidence, sales and retailer profits are routinely scrutinized by governments and the ‘market’ alike to get a sense of the overall well-being (or not) of an economy — if people are shopping then all is deemed well with the world! This is perhaps not surprising when the scale of the sector is considered. Within the United Kingdom, retailing now accounts for 20% of gross domestic product, generates over £311 billion in annual sales and employs in excess of 3 million people (British Retail Consortium, 2013). It is also a highly competitive market driven by a need to continually evolve to survive as consumer tastes and demands change. This is best exemplified by the rise in e-shopping which has seen consumers increasingly demand the ability to shop online whenever and wherever they so wish leaving some retailers floundering to catch up (Guardian, 2013). For some retailing has fundamentally changed the nature of popular culture in many societies with shopping becoming the pastime of choice for large swathes of the population, undertaken in the new cathedrals of consumerism where they feast upon the latest ‘must have’ products (Bainbridge, 1984; Bamfield, 2012; Dawson et al., 2008a; Kent and Omar, 2003).
Challenging existing ideas about not only what constitutes retail shrinkage, but also the approach that should be adopted to deal with it, it critically examines how current approaches to managing shrinkage are at best preventative, and how through operational excellence, organizations can reduce the impact it has on their profitability.
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to draw attention to an area of research that has considerable potential for academic researchers in the disciplines of retailing and distribution studies. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology adopted was an overview of existing literature with a view to identifying possible trends in research in the area of loss prevention. Findings – The paper identifies an extensive body of existing literature and provides an indication of areas for future research in loss prevention. Practical implications – The implications of these key issues are significant to the measurement of shrinkage in terms of the scope across the business from which shrinkage needs to be considered. This finding highlights the need to consider shrinkage as a systemic issue that extends across a business from design, through planning to operational execution. It also identifies the impact of shrinkage on increasing cost and depressing sales and considers the responsibility of management teams in addressing these matters. Originality/value – This paper is an original discussion on the topic and thus of value to the academic community. It is also of value to the practitioner community as it highlights the importance of developing relationships with the academic community.
The World Trade Centre terror attack in 2001 changed the world and with it the conditions for logistics worldwide. The aftermath of the attack brought needed attention to the vulnerability of modern supply chains. This thesis addresses the antagonistic threats that exploit the vulnerability in a supply chain. Antagonistic threats are a limited array of risks and uncertainties and can be addressed with risk management tools and strategies. There are three key demarcations between antagonistic threats and other risks and uncertainties: deliberate (caused), illegal (defined by law), and hostile (negative impact, in this thesis, for transport network activities). This thesis makes a theoretical contribution to the usage of theories from criminology in supply chain risk management to handle antagonistic threats against the transport network. The recognition that antagonistic threats toward the transport network are a problem leads to verification of the research questions from the background and the theoretical framework. This is done to place or relate the research questions closer to the context. Furthermore, it leads to the conclusion that the answers may or may not contain competing and/or incompatible parts which differ depending on the perspective or viewpoint at the moment. One of the most important things to understand is that antagonistic threats toward freight always have been a feature in both business and politics. The different functions and goals for all stakeholders mean that all stakeholders and actors may use similar methods to manage antagonistic threats but the effects and consequences will change according to the circumstances. The system approach in this thesis is a soft-system thinking where reality is described in subjective terms and the whole system has the distinctive trait of vague or undefined boundaries between system components and the surrounding environment. Therefore, this thesis uses a complex system approach in which paradoxes and bounded rationality describes the system’s behaviour. This thesis defines the legal descriptions and criminal threats against and within supply chain management activities that entail both the systems context and boundaries. Managing of the antagonistic threats through the risk management perspective is separated into two sides, pre-event and post-event measures, which means the system needs to be robust and resilient, using logistics terms. It should be robust to automatically handle small risks (normally with high likelihood and low impact). The system also needs resilience in order to adapt, improvise, and overcome any disturbance greater than the system’s robustness can handle. Both robustness and its resilience can constitute of the full range of prevention, mitigation, and transferring tools and methods. Regardless of which perspective or viewpoint is chosen for analysing the problem, the same basic set of tools and methods are valid, but in practical use they need to be adapted to the actors’ needs and wants for managing their exposure to antagonistic threats.