Nothing but a Pilferer's Chart

This applies right along the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer. Each link in the chain has the possibility of its profit being compromised by criminal activity.

In turn, each link adds on an element of cost to cover ‘shrinkage'. This cost is handed down to the next link, and so on and so on. In reality, though, it is the end user who pays for all of this shrinkage as the buck stops with them.

It's estimated that we all pay around 10% more than we should for our goods and services to cover the cost of criminal activity along the supply chain. Imagine the effect on costs - and trade in general - if criminal activity could be reduced or even removed completely?

Imagine also what effect this would have on the business of the end retailer? They would either make a great deal more profit on the same volume of trade or be able to reduce prices and experience an increased volume of trade (which, in turn, would yield a lot more profit). Either way the retailer would win, but in the last scenario the end user would also win. I believe that is what we should be aiming for... a win-win situation.

In the interests of fairness, the honest majority needs to see that the dishonest minority is punished for its actions when caught. It is a sad fact that the current Government's policies are continually watering down the punishment meted out to criminals. The Home Office, for example, is now promoting the issue of fixed penalty tickets for what it describes as ‘minor crimes'. These include shop theft up to the value of £200. On top of that, the offender would be let off without a criminal record and without any DNA or fingerprints having been taken.

If I were going to adopt a life of crime, shop theft would appear to be a good career move. First, I stand a good chance of not being found out, particularly if I'm good at it. Second, in the unlikely event of me being caught I will end up with a fixed penalty ticket provided I have stolen no more than £200 worth of goods. Seems like a good deal to me. I mentioned a win-win situation where the customer benefits. Well, this is a win-win situation for the criminal, provided they pay the fine. If they don't then they must be daft.

The fixed penalty ticket is little more than a Thief's Charter sponsored by the Government. What on Earth are our political leaders thinking about? They are not on the same planet as the rest of us if they think this is going to be regarded by the wrongdoer as a punishment.

Crime and punishment is a balancing act - balancing the needs of society to see punishment meted out with the need for the thief to be fearful of the full weight of the law. The current Government's policy is about as fearful to the thief as a feather fluttering Earthwards. In short, there is no longer a deterrent for thieves determined to commit shop theft.

The retail sector is about to experience previously unforeseen levels of ‘shrinkage' unless it responds in a positively aggressive way to increase the likelihood of thieves being caught.

Thieves are not thick. They are lazy. They cannot be bothered to earn a living like the rest of us, and crave an easy source of income. What's more, the retail sector needs to be alert to the fact that it is about to be seriously assaulted by these ne'er-do-wells.

The only solution is to ensure that the criminals are caught more often than not. Thus there will be no incentive for them to commit crime as the fixed penalty notices mount up. Failure to pay will lead to a prison sentence. They'll gravitate towards easier pickings.

Sadly, most businesses will not respond until they have been attacked. After all, theft isn't going to happen on their premises, is it?

John Dwyer, Managing Director, Zeon Business Protection Services