Retail employee theft: When retail security alone is not enough

Abstract

Retailers and local governments lose revenue, and inevitably consumers pay higher prices due to theft. In 2018, the amount lost to employee theft per incident was $1361. This is in comparison to the amount per incident lost to shoplifting of $302. Despite this difference, the scholarly attention in marketing on retail employee theft is sparse. The current study aims to fill this gap. The framework developed and tested is based on routine activity theory, the theory of reasoned action and findings from the retailing and management literature. Data were collected from a national sample of 665 retail employees. The framework simultaneously examines the influence of attitudes, antecedents, and social norms regarding stealing on employee intentions to steal and the influence of a moral compass and organizational commitment on attitudes toward stealing and intentions to steal. Results indicate that attitudes toward stealing are driven by the availability of suitable targets, the absence of guardianship, and a moral compass. Behavioral intentions to steal are influenced by attitudes toward stealing, suitable targets (but indirectly), and the employee's level of employment.

Consumer engagement, stress, and conservation of resources theory: A review, conceptual development, and future research agenda

“…For example, a consumer may experience stress worrying about this/her property being impacted by an impending natural disaster (Longmire et al, 2021); An actual net loss of resources. For example, consumers may experience stress following the theft of their items from their hotel room (e.g., Korgaonkar et al, 2021); or A lack of acquired resources following the expenditure of resources. For example, a university graduate may experience cognitive dissonance relating to the completion of his/her college degree based on a sense of limited learning versus a substantial student loan (e.g., Li & Choudhury, 2021).…”

“…An actual net loss of resources. For example, consumers may experience stress following the theft of their items from their hotel room (e.g., Korgaonkar et al, 2021); or…”

The Role of Customary Law in Regarding Theft Offenses by Minors

“…The word is also used as an informal term for a number of crimes against other people's property, such as home burglary, embezzlement, burglary, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal exchange. A person who commits acts or makes a career of theft is called a thief, and his actions are called stealing (Korgaonkar et al, 2021). Theft consists of objective elements (the act of taking, the object being an object, and elements of circumstances accompanying/attached to the object, namely the object partly or wholly belongs to another person) and subjective elements (the existence of an intention, which is intended to possess, and against the law) Homer (2020).…”

Can rewards induce corresponding forms of theft? Introducing the reward‐theft parity effect

“…The base rate of employee theft is staggering, and its costs are a leading cause of business failures (Appelbaum et al, 2006). Additionally, incidents of employee theft are over four times more prevalent than incidents of customer theft (Korgaonkar et al, 2021). Despite its established impact and importance, organizations are likely to underestimate the magnitude of employee theft and remain unaware of theft reduction techniques (Bailey, 2006).…”