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 |