Exploring how US and European retailers take different paths in loss prevention

Before diving in, I should stress that it’s always difficult to generalize. Comparing approaches to loss prevention across two large and complex regions inevitably means leaving out many day-to-day realities. Still, there are patterns worth examining, and these differences do seem to shape how both markets act on shrink.

How U.S. loss prevention benefits from national collaboration

One thing that stands out for me is how structurally “united” the United States actually is when it comes to legislation and coordinated measures around retail losses. We often refer to “the European market,” but when it comes to loss prevention, retailers in Europe still operate largely at a country-by-country level. Local presence is typically required to follow up on cases and extract operational value, and this creates a very fragmented landscape.

In the U.S., states collaborate more effectively, and public agencies: law enforcement, local police, and even the FBI are active partners in tackling shrink. Europe simply isn’t organized in the same way. There are national and regional initiatives, but the level of structural collaboration varies widely.

This leads to a question I keep coming back to: are the practical benefits of prosecution for U.S. retailers genuinely higher, or is it more a matter of visibility and focus?

Why organized retail crime receives more attention in the U.S.

This stronger collaboration in the U.S. also fuels something else: media attention. Successful interventions, especially regarding organized retail crime, receive broad coverage. The visibility reinforces the urgency, which in turn accelerates action. It becomes a kind of flywheel, where awareness and results keep feeding each other.

Culturally, the attitudes differ as well. While U.S. states generally acknowledge that retail losses materially harm the business, in Europe the perception is more mixed. To illustrate this contrast: in parts of Scandinavia it’s still common to see clothing racks placed outside on the street, while in southern Europe it’s not unusual to find items locked in plastic anti-theft boxes that only employees can open. The same continent yet such different expressions of risk tolerance.

How retailers structure loss prevention teams

Another noticeable difference lies in organizational structure. At many American retailers, Loss Prevention or Asset Protection is a dedicated discipline, represented at senior levels and resourced to innovate. In Europe, some retailers follow this model, but many still distribute responsibility for shrink across finance, audit, or operations.

I often wonder why: is shrink perceived as 1) manageable, as 2) just a cost of doing business, or is the topic simply struggling to 3) gain sufficient management attention?

I’ve seen retailers with more than 400 stores staffed by only two investigators, while some U.S. retailers employ hundreds of LP professionals. Clearly there is perceived value in proactively analyzing and preventing losses yet the exact value, and how best to quantify it, still feels somewhat elusive to me.

Is retail shrink truly higher in the U.S. or simply more prominent?

A question that continues to surface is whether shrink is genuinely worse in the U.S., or whether it receives more focus. I have not formed a definitive view yet.

What is clear, though, is that every retailer whether in Europe or the U.S. is dealing with losses.

In my next article, I’ll dive into the metrics retailers can use to steer their loss-prevention performance. For now, I wish everyone good luck heading into the upcoming sales period.