NRA Director – Policy, David Stout, said retail business owners and their employees had been watching the case closely, hoping to see the courts send a strong statement to offenders.

He said the sentence would be a disappointment for those who regularly deal with violence in their workplace.

“Retail workers and business owners are desperate for better protection from violence,” Mr Stout said.

“We know that 80 percent of retail workers have experienced some form of abuse at the hands of customers, including violence.

“It was pleasing to see the South Australian Government leading the nation by bringing in specific laws, and we are still keen to see other states and territories follow.

“We are also very grateful for the way the South Australian Police have prioritised this issue and worked hard to bring this prosecution to the courts.

“Sadly though, unless the courts also realise the significance of the problem, and send appropriate signals when sentencing offenders, the deterrent simply is not there.

“In this case, staff were physically assaulted and spat on, and they have told the court they were left traumatised by the experience.

“To see the offender walk away with a good behaviour bond and fine, but no jail time will compound their trauma, and will disappoint all retail owners and workers who had such high hopes for these new laws.

“We would like to see the South Australian Government have another look at their nation-leading laws, to ensure that all the good work of police is not undone in sentencing offenders.”

Mr Stout said the NRA was leading advocacy on this issue through its state-based Retail Crime Committees and called on the retail sector to work together to present a strong and united voice to government.

Source: NRA

Also read: Stronger penalties to protect retailers from customer abuse

The post NRA says retailers deserve better protection appeared first on Small Business Connections.

New South Wales is the second State to introduce regulations, after the South Australian Government introduced regulations to protect retail workers from abuse.

Chief Executive, Greg Griffith has welcomed the announcement. “We are working with landlords, Industry experts, retailers from a range of categories, Police and justice representatives, and unions, to support businesses and the excellent work of the Police across the country,”

“While we understand that the majority of customers are in stores to shop and are well behaved, we need to support our workforce. We need to address the behaviour of aggressive individuals and demonstrate there are consequences for their actions. We need to send a clear message that ‘they are not welcome here.’” said Mr Griffith.

“In addition to the amendments introduced in South Australia, the South Australian Police Commissioner has allocated resources toward a dedicated Retail Crime Intelligence Officer, to identify and track the critical offenders responsible for most retail loss. Since its inception some months ago, over 370 arrests of recidivist offenders have occurred and over 1,000 convictions have been made.”

“This shows the law does have a positive impact for retailers, and communities, creating safer working and shopping environments. However, more power needs to be given to police to effectively act on aggressive individuals. Once an individual has been identified for ongoing behavioural issues, the Police should have additional powers to prohibit those individuals from entering retail precincts indefinitely.”

“The first step in this process is to create a pathway for action and ensure the data and reporting mechanisms accurately reflect the heightened rates in customer aggression. We urge retailers to increase the reporting of these incidents to police across the country to better protect all our retail workers and their peers.” said Mr Griffith.

The National Retail Association have made representations to all State and Territory Ministers, calling for consistency and reform in line with the South Australian and New South Wales laws.

Source: NRA

Also read: Retail volumes fall for second straight quarter

The post Stronger penalties to protect retailers from customer abuse appeared first on Small Business Connections.

Around 30% of online purchases are subsequently returned, much of which goes to landfill. In 2020, an estimated 2.6 million tonnes of returns were disposed of this way in the US alone. The problem has become so notorious that the online retailer Boohoo recently followed a number of high street brands in starting to charge for returns in order to discourage them.

But what are the reasons for high returns and why are many returned items not being re-sold?

The pandemic fundamentally changed the way we shop, with the temporary closure of physical stores representing a boon for online retailers. However, online retail’s surging market share has origins in long-standing fast fashion marketing practices. The premium placed on newness, low prices, and both free delivery and returns, all encourage customers to purchase multiple options with the knowledge they can return items freely (known as “bracketing”).

Buy-now-pay-later schemes, such as Klarna, that allow customers to order without upfront payment have accelerated online consumption. Research indicates that by offering such “payment solutions”, retailers will typically see a 68% increase in average order value.

Industry research suggests that cart abandonment rates decrease by nearly 40% after the introduction of payment solutions. Discount events such as “Black Friday” also drive sales, with fashion accounting for around one-third of all Black Friday spend.

Fast fashion is synonymous with returns

Despite the appeal of low prices and discounts, cheaply manufactured fast fashion items can typically exhibit quality and fit issues, so are synonymous with returns. Impulsive spending, driven by discounts, also often leads to regret, again increasing the incidence of return. The 32% return rate for clothing orders therefore dwarfs that of other e-commerce sectors, comparing to just 7% in consumer electronics.

For retailers, processing returns is also fraught with uncertainty and complexity. Which items will be returned, and in what state, is unknown. Often, once used, little can be done to make them desirable for re-purchase.

This is particularly true in the case of “wardrobing”, where a purchased item is worn once before being returned. Retailers not only encounter financial loss through reprocessing, they risk a spoiled reputation if worn or damaged items are recirculated.

ASOS previously announced that they would clamp down on “wardrobing” by closing the accounts of fraudulent returners. However, the threat of a bad review often leaves the retailer with little option but to refund.

Many retailers instead sell these returns on to liquidators, who turn the obsolete goods into fast cash. A cursory look on eBay reveals dozens of pallets of “Amazon customer returns” available to the highest bidder.

The challenges facing retailers

Both the cost of processing returns, and their increased volume, represent a challenge for retailers. The substantial reprocessing costs involved in product returns means that for fast fashion items, they often exceed the potential resale revenue. The remuneration of comparatively high-cost domestic workers within labour-intensive returns reprocessing is widely considered responsible for this.

Getting rid of returns therefore often constitutes the most cost-effective decision. An ITV investigation into Amazon’s Dunfermline warehouse claimed the online retailer disposed of tens of thousands of returned consumer goods each week. Amazon said none of its items went to landfill but were instead donated, recycled or incinerated for energy recovery.

The fashion industry collectively produces over 92 million tonnes of textile waste per year. In the US alone, clothing returns create more annual carbon dioxide emissions than 3 million cars.

Carbon dioxide is initially emitted through the collection of returns, before increasing as returns are either incinerated or deposited in landfill. Due to the prevalence of synthetic fibres in fast fashion, returns can take up to 100 years to fully decompose, emitting carbon dioxide and methane in the process, as well as leaching harmful substances into the surrounding soil.

How are retailers tackling the returns issue?

While the environmental implications of product returns are clear, fashion retailers also have a financial incentive to tackle the issue of costly returns management.

Due to the complexities surrounding reprocessing, fashion retailers are increasingly outsourcing the responsibility to specialist firms, such as ReBound Returns, which work with retailers to make the returns process more sustainable.

ReBound encourage retailers to donate returned consumer goods to charity through their ReBound Regift facility. This has so far facilitated charitable donations worth £190 million. ASOS states that 97% of their returns are now resold, and no items are sent to landfill.

As Boohoo’s recent move shows, several online retailers have attempted to pass the cost of returns onto customers. While the reasoning for this is primarily financial, the impact of similar policies in improving customers’ environmental consciousness is well-known. Since 2015, plastic bag usage has dropped 97% in England’s main supermarkets, following the introduction of a small charge.

Despite calls for greater sustainability within the fashion industry, fast fashion continues to flourish. Should marketing practices that encourage waste and fuel emissions persist, the fashion industry will retain its unwanted reputation as a significant contributor to climate change. Retailers must reconsider the unintended effects of the leniency afforded by their returns policies, balancing the need for customer retention with environmental consciousness.

Source: The Conversation

The post Fast fashion: The issue with the retailers’ return policy appeared first on Small Business Connections.