Professor calls for better support for shop workers

This is less an idiosyncratic HR story than a signal that shrink is now colliding with labor policy and brand risk. The second-order effect is that retailers will increasingly optimize for staff safety and legal defensibility over real-time loss prevention, which effectively raises the expected value of theft for opportunistic offenders and shifts the burden into higher shrink, more security spend, and worse in-store conversion. That combination is margin-negative, but the more important effect is that it forces a review of operating protocols across the sector, especially in urban and repeat-offense locations where loss prevention economics are already weakest.

The near-term winner is outsourced security and loss-prevention technology: body-worn camera providers, analytics, access-control, and electronic article surveillance vendors should see faster procurement cycles as retailers try to avoid direct confrontation while still reducing theft. The loser is the labor model for large-format grocery and convenience chains, where added security layers slow operations and can depress basket size if shoppers perceive stores as unsafe or chaotic. Over months, persistent shrink pressure also tends to show up in gross margin guidance, but the market often misprices it as transitory until multiple operators guide to same-store margin compression.

The real catalyst is not the headline itself but policy response: if there is broader regulatory or police pressure for tougher enforcement, the current non-intervention stance could reverse, easing the shrink spiral within 6-12 months. If not, this becomes a multi-quarter earnings headwind, particularly for value grocers with thin margins and high labor intensity. The consensus is probably underestimating how quickly employee morale and retention deteriorate when workers feel they are being asked to absorb loss without authority to act; that can quietly raise wage costs and turnover, compounding the shrink problem.