A short while ago, Ian Paton writes, I was consulting to a retail business and conducting a general review of the security function with the remit to highlight risks to that company.
One recommendation was to adopt a more robust policy for protecting both the company and their colleagues from prosecution by making mistakes in the sale of age restricted products. You may ask: what has this to do with the security-loss prevention (LP) function? I think that lies in the underlying responsibilities of the LP manager and the general ‘risk’ to a business. Who better equipped to look at what can be considered a real risk to any retail business and mitigate a risk that can endanger both the companies public profile, (from adverse publicity) and also help protect the colleagues by equipping them so as to avoid being prosecuted themselves?
Sales to under-age
The “Challenge 25” scheme introduced by the licensed trade associations in recent years was aimed at the sale of alcohol and this, in general was not an issue to the company I was involved with. Of more concern were the sale of knives both in sets and separately but also more diverse and perhaps unexpected items, such as Christmas crackers, scissors, false nails that contain age restricted glue and liqueur chocolates to name a few. The company concerned was a very forward thinking concern but like many before them had not fully appreciated the changing conditions expected by trading standards and the farcical climate of political publicity around the sale of knives to under age persons. The concerns I highlighted were around the duty of care not only to the public but also to protect our colleagues from prosecution.
We had to show;
• Appropriate training had been given to, and importantly understood by the colleagues
• There was an ongoing plan for refresher training
• Records kept of refusals of sales
• Suitable signs around the stores to highlight to customers that we would be looking for proof of age if necessary
It was also important that we obtained buy in from the operations side of the business as without this buy in the stores management teams and colleagues would never buy in. Like anything in the risk management sector you need to ensure that anything you propose does not inhibit sales. We achieved this by looking at what was working elsewhere, (a common method). Also of course as consultants are renowned for asking for your watch so they can tell you the time, my first step was to contact the local trading standards and arrange a meeting. Always a good starting point and plans blossomed from there.
Total buy-in
In a short time a proposal was made to the directors and, I have to admit to slight surprise about the response, total buy in from the operations side and HR. From start of the consultation period all work was carried out, including training, within two months of this meeting, which my experience shows is phenomenal support from any organisation and showed the seriousness of the company’s intent. We decided to introduce “Challenge 21” which would mean looking for photographic proof from anyone purchasing an age restricted product if they looked under 21. A training pack was drawn up along with planned refresher training. Sign off of this was agreed. Relevant signage was commissioned to place around the store and at all entrances and exits informing customers that they may be asked for photographic proof of age if they appeared to be under 21.
Posters
We also commissioned different posters informing colleagues of the law and these were placed in staff rooms, on the doors as the colleagues entered the shop floor and that wonderful spot where you have everyone’s attention, in the staff toilet cubicles. Staff were issued with badges that said “Challenge 21” and underneath “It is my job to ask for proof of age”. Also at all check out points there were credit card size information cards to give to customers to inform them of what we were now doing. The training initially took the form of a presentation to the Operations and HR functions where the finance director introduced me and obviously showed his backing. I was then supported by the Operations side and took this training to all the Divisional meetings of their Managers with the obvious connotation of backing from their boss, the divisional manager.
Training
Training packages had been prepared and it was then down to the stores to roll the training out to the colleagues. Great support was given from the operations team who cleared a window of store opportunity to facilitate this training and the stores reacted well to this. Further to this we looked at internet sourced training and the training is now done on line which allows the colleagues to be trained at store on they can do this in their own time in the comfort of their home. Surprisingly many chose to do this. This then creates records of how long and exactly when the training was carried out. Refresher training is conducted in the same way. Records were kept initially by written forms kept at each till. This was then improved by a programme added to the till system that asked the questions if an age related product was being sold. Before completion of the sale the colleague had to acknowledge this and state what form of acceptable identification had been witnessed. Or of course they could override this by saying the person did not appear under 21. However, by doing so they were accepting responsibility for the sale. The stores used piped in music and it was decided to have an announcement placed within the opening ours that the law was changing and informing that identification may be required. The customers reacted excellently and there were no complaints at what we were doing. The company was taking all steps to avoid under age sales taking place without proper process taking place and inspection from trading standards gave us the thumbs up. The colleagues also reacted with enthusiasm and feedback given fully supported the new process and training.
But being cynical …
In concluding, and I hold my hands up to being cynical … the sale of knives to under age people is a serious matter and all retailers have a duty to comply with legal requirements. Most do so. However, it is also a source of humour and annoyance to me that government will come up with yet another scheme, supposedly to stop people taking knives into the public domain. I am all behind this but why does this normally run around passing the blame on retailers. This is blatantly absurd. How many people get up in the morning and think to themselves “I want to stab someone so I must go out and buy a knife to do so.” Then get dressed, go into town and select a knife? Rather, I would expect, that person would go to the kitchen and select a knife from there, or if really wanting to obtain a knife would walk into a shop and commit theft. No, sorry, but the idea of people purchasing a knife to commit a serious crime is, to me anyway, total farce, but good political propaganda to show the stamp down on the sale of knives to under age people through the prosecution of retailers. Go onto Google news and look for items concerning the sale of a knife that is then used as a weapon. You won’t find any.
About the writer
Ian Paton started his retail career in 2000 after retiring early from Strathclyde Police. Taking the role of Regional Security Officer for Focus DIY he grew within that company and became head of security in 2004. Since leaving Focus DIY as a result of redundancy in 2007 he has consulted on security and loss prevention issues to various high profile retailers. He graduated in December 2009 at Loughborough University with an MSc in security management. It is his hope to return to retail to build or develop a security/loss prevention function. Married with two children Ian is an amateur football referee and a keen runner who hopes to complete his third Great North Run for charity in September.
