High-tech solutions have been heralded as the answer to soaring shoplifting rates. But might a lo-fi, design-led approach prove even more effective?
Shoplifting in England and Wales is at its highest level since current recording practices began in 2003. In the year to March there were 530,643 reported shoplifting offences, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), a 20% increase from the previous year. And that’s only the reported cases.
Technology has been heralded – at least by its providers – as the panacea to the problem. Advances in computer vision and AI have surfaced solutions that can detect when a product is picked from a shelf and placed in a coat pocket, or not scanned at a self-checkout. Facial recognition tech – while highly controversial – is increasingly being used to identify known shoplifters.
But there are limits to such tech, which can come at significant cost. Not only do they risk putting off law-abiding customers, they often provide alerts too late or carry an expectation of confrontation from staff.
As shoplifting, and other forms of retail crime like shopworker abuse and violence, continue to rise, there’s been a reappraisal of seemingly less sophisticated design and psychology-based techniques that aim to prevent theft from occurring in the first place.
Could a store’s design and layout work to deter would-be thieves? Is there a downside to more technology and surveillance? And what easy-to-install design hacks might put off a shoplifter from targeting a particular shop?
In their battle against crime, many retailers are turning to tech. Some 43% in the UK plan to invest in technology to address the cost of crime to their business, according to a January report by law firm TLT.
“Be it technology to solve shoplifting or anything else, the shiny and new is often quite attractive, and especially if it’s leveraging AI and technology that’s in vogue at the moment,” says Patrick Young, MD of shopper behavioural science consultancy PRS In Vivo.
“The caution is that quite often a lot of this technology is about what happens after the fact. It’s about identifying who has shoplifted or what they’ve shoplifted rather than trying to stop it in the act,” Young says. “It might be able to register that a product has left the building unpaid for, but it doesn’t stop that person from taking it. It’s not really solving the problem.”
Shoplifting styles: the seven personas behind shop theft
Oyster: Professional thieves that make a livelihood from stealing, sometimes known as Hoisters or Boosters. They operate in rational ways with high skill, targeting items based on value, ease of concealment and resale potential. They often work as part of organised gangs. The target of a crackdown by the Metropolitan Police this month, which led to 32 arrests.
Calculated Amateur: Steal items impulsively and for personal use, without prior planning or intent to resell. Far less organised than Oysters; their actions are spontaneous, and driven by situational factors or emotional states. The understanding that they can usually get away with it is crucial for them: extreme risk-taking is minimal.
Swipers: Seemingly well-intentioned patrons engaging in routine shoplifting. Individuals who primarily exploit self-service checkouts and shop & go systems to steal items, either by not scanning items or substituting cheaper codes for expensive products. They rationalise their behaviour as “cheating the system” and often are frustrated with how the world treats them.
Entitled: Rationalise their thefts by believing they are correcting a perceived injustice or that they deserve the items more than the retailer. This sense of entitlement has been summarised as “what has been stolen from me, I am entitled to steal from them” and may stem from “middle-class disenfranchisement” or past grievances. “Addressing these cognitive distortions in personal and cultural narratives is key to preventing such behaviours,” Lorraine Gamman says.
Addict: Substance-dependent individuals who resort to shoplifting to support their habits. They are prolific offenders and their thefts accelerate to match their habit. Addressing the underlying addiction is crucial for preventing recidivism in this group. Research has shown addicts can cost retailers as much as £250k per individual as they develop into professional shoplifters.
Skint: Individuals facing financial difficulties who steal out of necessity. They target essential goods they cannot afford such as food or basic household items out of sheer desperation. The economic hardship of the cost of living crisis “pushes people to something they’ve never done before” says retail security firm Kingdom Services Group. The group said it was increasingly encountering a “different sort of shoplifter now”, including more pensioners.
Thrill Seekers: Some individuals, particularly adolescents but can include all generations, engage in shoplifting purely for the excitement and adrenaline rush. This thrill-seeking behaviour is not economically motivated and often influenced by peer pressure and a desire to challenge boundaries. Distinct from those with compulsive theft disorders or kleptomania, which are clinical conditions.
Source: Design Against Crime Research Lab, UAL
Preventing theft in the first place
The case for what is known as crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is building. CPTED is “a crime reduction approach that aims to prevent crime though the design or manipulation of the built environment” explains Professor Rachel Armitage, director of research at Leeds Law School. Its effectiveness has been proven to combat burglary in residential areas, and it’s now beginning to be applied, along with other design-based frameworks, to the retail environment.
In a study by Armitage and colleagues, ex-offenders were fitted with body-worn cameras and asked to navigate two UK supermarket chains “as if committing shoplifting offences” while “explaining their thought processes and decision-making”.
“Shoplifters can always assess how easy it is to steal from a shop by how soon they are spoken to by a member of staff”
Somewhat surprisingly, “participants were not deterred by CCTV” as it is rarely monitored in the moment. Security tags and cases were also considered “ineffective” by the career shoplifters as they could be easily removed and were inconsistently applied. And the cardboard cutout police officers? As one former thief put it: “They’re a f***ing joke, aren’t they?”
But layout and design elements of the stores “act as deterrents” and were frequently referenced as reasons to abandon their shoplifting mission.
“There is little doubt that the design of the built environment influences offender decision-making,” Armitage says.
Different types of shoplifter have different motives and will be deterred by different measures, and “what might work in one place might not work in another”, says Professor Lorraine Gamman, director of the UAL Design Against Crime Research Lab. But they can work, and crucially “address security issues without compromising functionality or aesthetics”, Gamman says, by “not looking criminal or making legitimate users feel penalised”.
Sightlines are an important piece of the puzzle. In Armitage’s study, “the possibility of being seen by staff or legitimate shoppers was a clear deterrent for all participants. Offenders spoke about seeking out blind spots, corners or areas of the store where they would be hidden from view.” High shelving units were also “viewed as assisting them in avoiding detection”.
Defensible space
By designing those blind spots out, retailers could significantly reduce theft attempts. The discounters are good at this, says Young. Many larger Aldi and Lidl stores have a lower middle aisle to aid staff views, and “you can always see the checkout wherever you are in the store”, says Young.
Any “quiet corners” increase “perceptions of defensible space” in thieves, says Professor Adrian Palmer of Henley Business School. “If people cannot see others, they believe others cannot see them, leading to behaviours that are not socially approved.”
Another useful element is mirrors. Stores like Sephora have mirrors placed behind products in displays and along shelving. While befitting of a beauty retailer, they also work as a security measure.
“It makes you look at yourself, but also makes you see more around you, and drives that sense of ‘am I being watched, am I being noted?’” says Young. “Whereas a hidden camera or AI solution is by its very nature much more hidden, so people don’t feel as observed.”
Mirrors can also boost sightlines with “strategic placement”. Alongside lower shelving, Avery Dennison research reported it could cut shrinkage by up to 23%.
But they can also have the opposite effect. As one participant in Armitage’s study said: “That poxy mirror is no good to nobody, they’re a favour to you cos you can see who’s watching you.”
There is also product placement to consider: placing high-value, commonly stolen items in full view of checkouts and staff provides ready human surveillance. Barriers can also be helpful – in Armitage’s study, the ex-offenders said alarm barriers could be effective, but only if floor to ceiling and flush to the side walls “so you cannot squeeze behind them”.
“If people cannot see others, they believe others cannot see them, leading to behaviours that are not socially approved”
The positioning of checkout desks also worked to deter thieves. If the only way to exit was funnelling past one, versus a checkout “nowhere near the door”, they were more likely to seek a softer target.
Even the placement of a community board could have an impact. A board including images and names of staff or the work the store does for local charities, near the entrance, “gives a sense of ‘this is not just a nameless corporation I’m going into, but actually has a role in the community’” says Young. For some would-be thieves it works by “framing the impact of what some of these actions might do in a more emotional way”, he adds.
Advice issued to retailers by the police in August recommends staff acknowledge a customer within three to five seconds of them entering the store. “Greeting customers as they enter your premises can put off shoplifters, because it sends out a message that you and your staff are paying attention,” the advice notes. “Shoplifters can always assess how easy it is to steal from a shop by how soon after they enter they are spoken to by a member of staff.”
Finally, a simple, tidy store can be a deterrent in itself. “If the aisles and shelves are cluttered and half empty and a bit disorganised, it gives the sense that people aren’t paying attention,” Young says. “Whereas more staff or more focus on making sure the aisles are ordered, clean and tidy gives the sense that actually somebody is paying attention to the store.”
Gamman says supermarkets “can lead” on designing security measures for their stores, rather than solutions be handed down by tech providers.
“They need to get a little bit more adventurous about innovating themselves, because their staff might know what to do. They have really good staff, they’re on the ground and see it every day,” she adds.
Prison environment
Too much technology might degrade the law-abiding shopper’s experience too.
“This technology is being imposed on people and is starting to drive a sense of control over shoppers, and the feeling they’re being watched and their trolley being scrutinised by technology,” Young says. Trolley scales or ‘scan receipt to exit’ systems “create a prison environment, which nobody particularly enjoys”.
Lo-fi approaches offer “something a bit softer. It’s about trying to influence behaviour to begin with and stop it from occurring rather than catching people in the act”, Young adds.
As Gamman puts it: “Given the situation is so dire, what have supermarkets got to lose in trying out new ways to design against shoplifting, when the cost of existing security is so expensive?”
No comments yet