Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of studies with quantitative outcome measures studies included in “Effect” section

From: A systematic review of tagging as a method to reduce theft in retail environments

Study Publication type Location Store type Tag type Item(s) tagged Action group Control group Primary outcome measure(s) Results
Farrington et al. (1993) Book chapter UK (country-wide) Electrical goods stores EAS tags Electrical goods 2 stores with tags 1 store control, 2 stores other conditions (redesign and security guards) % of items stolen Significant long term decrease in number of items stolen in stores where tags were installed
Bamfield (1994) Book chapter UK (North and Midlands) Variety chain retailer EAS hard tags All except those which cost <£5 4 stores 1 store Shrinkage 28.3% reduction in shrinkage where EAS were installed
DiLonardo and Clarke (1996) Journal Hints at USA (country-wide) Women’s clothing stores Ink tags Clothing 14 stores None Shortage 42% reduction in shrinkage where ink tags were installed
Hayes and Blackwood (2006) Journal USA (Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey) Mass merchant retail chain EAS tags (concealed and not) Personal grooming products 13 stores 8 stores Item loss levels, product availability, sales No significant difference in loss levels, product availability or sales figures
Beck and Palmer (2010) Journal USA (country-wide) Apparel retailer (clothing, fragrances) EAS hard tags vs EAS soft tags Clothing 355 stores 540 stores Shrinkage 250% increase in shrinkage following installation of soft tags
Downs et al. (2011) Industry report USA Department store A3 EAS tag (in red and beige) vs EAS tags Jeans 3 stores 3 stores Shrinkage and sales Overall installation of A3Tags was associated with a 49% increases in shrinkage and a 5% increase in sales. However red A3Tags saw a 42% reduction in shrinkage and 18% increase in sales
Retailer A (2015) Industry report UK (country-wide) Supermarket EAS soft tags vs hard cases CDs 20 stores 60 stores Shrinkage, sales rates 134% increase in shrinkage following installation of soft tags; 16.6% increase in sales of tagged items compared to control stores.
Retailer B (2015) Industry report UK (country-wide) Supermarket EAS soft tags Meat products Number of stores not stated Similar items in same store Shrinkage 52.6% reduction in shrinkage following installation of EAS