STAFF DISHONESTY – AN IMPORTANT WORKPLACE CRIME

EXPLANATION IN THE LIGHT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

The crime in the workplace has been a subject of increasing

interest for the criminologists and researchers in recent

years. Numerous studies and surveys have been carried out,

as it was realized that managing and preventing workplace

crime is of vital importance for any organisation. According

to Challenger (1995: 2) ‘Workplace crime is generally seen

as comprising offences that cause an identifiable loss to an

employer’. Ismaili (2001, as cited in Friedrichs, 2002: 251)

defines ‘workplace crime’ as ‘any harmful act committed by a

person or group of persons during the course of a legitimate

occupation’. Sennewald (2003) identified, ‘one of the major

remits of the security manager as being the limiting of

losses to his or her organisation’. Managing and preventing

crime in the workplace has become the main goal for any

security manager, as it is instrumental in creating a safe

and secure working environment for employees as well as

preventing financial losses to an organisation.

This essay will discuss workplace crime of ‘Staff

Dishonesty’, as one of the important workplace offences. It

will outline the extent of the problem and the causes which

possibly lead to staff dishonesty. An attempt would be made

to explain this crime in the light of ‘deterministic’ as

-1-

well as ‘neo-Classical perspective’ in criminology. After

discussing explanations offered by various criminological

theories, the prevention strategies would be highlighted.

This would include situational techniques including

opportunity reduction as well as social crime prevention

measures. A final conclusion would be drawn as to how

helpful the various criminological theories could be for a

security manager to manage this offence. In order to

maintain focus of this assignment, the role of a security

manager in a large departmental store or supermarket would

be considered as an example.

‘Staff Dishonesty’ or ‘Employee Theft’ is widely regarded as

a form of occupational crime. According to Hollinger and

Davis (2006), staff dishonesty takes place during the course

of a legitimate occupation, involves a violation of trust

and is committed primarily for the benefit of the individual

either financially or in terms of social status. A widely

accepted definition of ‘employee theft’ or ‘staff

dishonesty’ is ‘the unauthorized taking, control, or

transfer of money and/or property of the formal work

organisation perpetrated by an employee during the course of

occupational activity which is related to his or her

employment’ (Hollinger and Clark, 1983 as cited in Hollinger

and Davis, 2006: 204-205). It was recognized by Hollinger

and Clark that employee theft has two major forms, namely

-2-

‘property deviance’ including financial embezzlement,

pilferage and theft of goods or sabotage and ‘production

deviance’ including time theft. The Association of Certified

Fraud Examiners offers a broader definition of the term

‘occupational fraud’ as, ‘the use of one’s occupation for

personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or

misapplication of the employing organisation’s resources or

assets’ (ACFE, 2008: 6). In the service industry, staff

dishonesty is often called ‘fiddling’, which can be defined

as ‘a theft by a service agent from a customer which is

practiced in such a way as to make it interactionally and

inventorily invisible’ (Ditton, 1977: 19).

The scale and extent of staff dishonesty can only be

calculated by knowing the rate of incidence (number of times

a theft has occurred) and prevalence (number or proportion

of staff involved). However, an exact answer to these

questions has remained a challenging task for the

researchers because of lack of data, as most of the

incidents of staff dishonesty are dealt with internally by

most companies and rarely end up in official criminal

statistics (Beck, 2006a). The researchers have no option but

to rely on case studies, self-report surveys and other

indirect measures used by various organisations (Hollinger

and Davis, 2006).

-3-

According to annual studies undertaken by University of

Florida, since 1991, internal theft is responsible for 40-47

percent of all losses in the US (Hollinger and Langton, 2004

as cited in Beck, 2006a: 6). Similarly, ECR Europe shrinkage

survey of 2004 suggested that staff theft accounted for 28

percent of the losses of retailers (Beck, 2006a). The BRC’s

Retail Crime Survey of 2009 estimated staff theft and fraud

to account for 7 percent of the £1.1 billion losses in crime

against UK retailers (BRC, 2009). According to Hollinger and

Clark (1983, as cited in Beck and Peacock, 2009: 68),

employee theft accounts for between 10-15 percent of the

cost of consumer goods in the US and it plays a major part

in the bankruptcies of between 30-50 percent of all

companies going into insolvency (Greenberg, 1997 as cited in

Hollinger and Davis, 2006: 204). The ACFE in its 2008 report

estimated that U.S. organisations lost 7% of their annual

revenues (equivalent to $994 billion) to fraud (ACFE, 2008).

This does not take into account the amount lost by

production deviance or ‘time theft’.

The various forms of staff dishonesty were classified

according to the workplace characteristics by Gerald Mars in

1982, in a classification named Grid/Group Analysis or

Dynamic Cultural Theory (Mars, 2006). The grid dimension

assesses the relative strength of constraints operating in a

job and is composed of the elements of autonomy, insulation,

-4-

reciprocity and competition (Department of Criminology,

2009b: 5-8). The group dimension measures the collectivity

among staff and also consists of four elements, namely

frequency or level of interaction with others on similar

tasks, mutuality, scope or range of shared activities

including socializing and a defined boundary or an awareness

of a collective identity (Department of Criminology, 2009b:

5-9).

According to the combinations of these ‘grid’ and ‘group’

dimensions, four occupational archetypes were proposed by

Mars (2006), namely Wolf-packs (strong grid/strong group),

Hawks (weak grid/weak group), Vultures (weak grid/strong

group) and Donkeys (strong grid/weak group). The Wolf-packs

are strongly knit, well organized groups who have assertive

self-identity, hierarchy and rules and operate collectively.

The Hawks are free of group membership and group controls

and their members decide their individual course of action.

The Vultures are those occupations having strong sense of

boundary but in which the members are quite autonomous with

less constraints and pursuing their own benefits. The

Donkeys are those occupations which are strongly constrained

by external rules and categories and lack the support from

other members of their group. So, the members lack autonomy,

work in isolation and are prone to retaliation and sabotage.

-5-

The security manager in a retail setting has to understand

all these ideal occupation archetypes in order to understand

which one is more prevalent in his/her store. For example,

the workers at the till or the check out employees are

classic example of the ‘donkey jobs’. Therefore, the

security manager has to be careful in this regard and expect

common fiddles from them like under-ringing the till,

voiding last item, not charging all items for family or

friends, illegal usage of employee or loyalty cards, etc.

Similarly, the other employees working in different areas of

the store can belong to any of the archetypes described

depending on the existing work culture prevalent.

After analyzing the various forms of staff dishonesty, an

attempt would be made to understand why some staff indulges

in dishonest practices in the workplace, while others do

not. This is a complex issue and it should be understood

that there is no single factor or theory that can explain

each and every offence and instead the deviance may depend

on a variety of factors and circumstances.

The oldest explanation of why staff indulges in dishonest

practices can be found in the deterministic approach

suggested by biological and psychological positivists like

Cesare Lombroso. Some of the later researchers and security

professionals tended to view that offending is ‘determined’

-6-

by pathological and deviant impulses or pathological

disturbances of mind or of the social fabric that produce

deviant personalities (Tucker, 1989, Smigel and Ross, 1970

as cited in Department of Criminology, 2009b). This point of

view does not have much to offer for explaining staff

dishonesty except highlighting the fact that offending staff

are in some ways different from their non-offending or

honest colleagues.

The second explanation of staff dishonesty can be found in

the Neo-Classical perspective. The rational choice theory

can be used both to explain the required conditions for the

occurrence of specific offences like employee theft as well

as to explain why employees become involved in such crimes.

According to this theory, the decision making stages are all

influenced by complex situational variables, which can be

psychological, sociological and depending on incentives and

opportunities. ‘The assumption is that the offender is

acting rationally and within this approach, offenders are

seen as decision-makers, they choose to become involved in

crime after weighing the costs and benefits of this course

of action’ (Cornish and Clarke, 2006: 19, as cited in

Department of Criminology, 2009a: 3-7). The question now

arises as to what are the conditions, which provide the

motivation for staff to become dishonest? Durkheim’s

sociological concept of ‘anomie’ associated with

-7-

‘restlessness’, ‘dissatisfaction’, ‘agitation’ and other

states leading a person to suicide or deviance, provides one

of the answers (Reiner, 2007 as cited in Department of

Criminology, 2009b: 2-20).

Some studies have suggested that employees that are under

external financial pressures, like high levels of personal

debts and loans, may be inclined to steal from their

employers to meet external financial pressures. Such

employees, who are disadvantaged and cannot meet their debts

through legitimate means, adopt alternative means which may

lead to dishonesty (Merton, 1938 as cited in Department of

Criminology, 2009a: 2-20, 21). Other studies dispute this

explanation and suggest that this factor only plays a minor

role in explaining staff dishonesty (Hollinger and Clark,

1986, as cited in Beck, 2006a). The overall rise in consumer

debt during the past decade with a corresponding rise in

internal staff theft and fraud figures has once again raised

this as a possible issue in explaining staff dishonesty

(Hollinger and Davis, 2006). According to the concept of

‘anomie’ and in view of the ongoing worldwide recession, the

incidence of employee theft and staff dishonesty should

increase as more and more people are suffering growing debts

with no means to pay off their mortgages and loans. However,

BRC Retail Crime Survey of 2009, estimated staff theft and

fraud accounted for 7% of the losses of crime against

-8-

retailers in the UK, as compared to 8% during the previous

year (BRC, 2009). This was contrary to the last five years

trend, but this decline can be attributed to the mounting

job losses due to recession during 2008-09 (Kollewe and

Wearden, 2009). Therefore, losses due to staff theft and

dishonesty could reduce as the number of people having

employment decreased. With the recent reports of a fall in

the UK unemployment rate from 7.9% to 7.8% in January 2010

(BBC, 2010), we might see a return of the previous trend.

Cornish and Clarke (1986, as cited in Hollinger and Davis,

2006) suggested that an offender’s decision and choices for

committing theft and dishonesty are not motivated solely by

economic needs but are likely to be guided by external

factors such as time, ability and the availability of

relevant information to commit an offence. Cohen and

Felson’s (1979: 590) ‘Routine Activity Theory’ is able to

explain the factors that are considered by potential

offenders before they commit any crime. According to this

theory, ‘the probability that a violation will occur at any

specific time and place might be taken as a function of the

convergence of likely offenders and suitable targets in the

absence of capable guardians’. Thus, unlocked inventory

doors or cash safes, areas without CCTV or surveillance and

relatively easy access to valuable information can be the

conditions in the retail store setting, which can lead to

-9-

exploitation by the motivated or rational staff for their

individual benefit (Hollinger and Davis, 2006).

According to Hollinger and Davis, one can find desirable

goods and merchandise of value as well as good amount of

cash almost everywhere in the retail environment. Thus the

level of opportunities is higher in the retail sector, and

studies have proved higher incidence of staff dishonesty and

theft. Reducing the opportunities by target hardening,

denial of benefits, increased surveillance, limiting staff

access to cash and goods are some of the measures, which can

be considered by the security manager to minimize losses.

For example, the pattern of thefts could be studied to

identify crime hot-spots within the retail store,

identifying offence locations, routes which offenders might

normally take to these locations, blind spots not covered by

CCTV or other surveillance and boundaries between two

departments of the same store. All these factors can help

formulate feasible crime prevention strategies using the

internal design of the particular store (Brantingham and

Brantingham, 1993, as cited in Beck and Willis, 1998). One

of the chief methods adopted by many retailers to tackle

shoplifting has been the use of Electronic Article

Surveillance (EAS) and this can be equally effective for

internal shop theft. However, one of the key problems of

using such system has been the high level of false alarms,

-10-

which severely impacts its utility and usage (Beck, 2005).

However, all such measures can seriously jeopardize the

ability of store employees to do their jobs and impair the

sales figures. A balance has to be struck between preventive

measures and procedures limiting the opportunities of the

employees and the freedom granted to them in doing their job

for facilitating the customers. It must also be kept in mind

that internal thieves are often in an ideal position to

‘probe’ new and existing processes and procedures to find

loopholes that would enable them to increase their

opportunities and reduce their risks (Beck, 2006b: 468).

Therefore, the security manager in a retail setting has to

be dynamic and well informed to remain one step ahead of

such employees.

There is another group of theories explaining the relation

between employee dishonesty and job dissatisfaction. These

theories explain that staff that is unhappy with their

working environment or circumstances would be more likely to

offend (Mangione and Quinn, 1975, as cited in Beck, 2006a).

On the contrary, if the attitudes of staff towards the

employing organisation, management and supervisors are

positive, there would be a lower level of deviant behaviour.

Greenberg (1997, as cited in Hollinger and Davis 2006: 213)

explains in the ‘Steal Motive Theory’ that ‘employees will

engage in theft in order to ‘even the score’ and redress

-11-

perceived inequity with their employers’. The security

manager will have to work actively with the management to

reduce the job grievances and improve the working

environment for staff, in order to reduce the levels of

staff dishonesty.

The role of an organisational culture has also been a factor

in explaining staff dishonesty in some of the theories. This

refers to a set of shared meanings or understandings that

influence organisational behaviour by shaping employees

knowledge and perceptions of reality. It has been noted by

many scholars that many informal peer subcultures of

dishonesty exist within a given workplace. Often these

informal subcultures become so strong that they take

precedence over the formal rules and established guidelines

(Ott, 1989, Parilla, Hollinger and Clark, 1988, as cited in

Hollinger and Davis, 2006). It is therefore important that a

security manager in a retail setting understands the various

informal subcultures present. The peer pressure can also be

used positively because in such a situation, the employees

become more influenced by the expectation of their workplace

peers than by formal rules and sanctions and this can have a

deterrent effect on theft and dishonesty. If the security

manager realizes that a general culture of dishonesty exists

at a particular store, he/she has to work with the

-12-

management to make efforts and policies to discourage such

culture, as this would make his/her work easier.

Motivation, rationalization and opportunity are the

essential elements of any internal fraud or dishonest act

(Cressey, 1953, as cited in Kieffer and Sloan, 2009). After

the staff are motivated enough to commit the offence and

find the appropriate opportunity, they need to rationalize

or neutralize their feelings of guilt concerning their

dishonest behaviour or theft. Matza and Sykes (1957, as

cited in Hollinger and Davis, 2006) defined these

techniques, which allowed for the traditional ethical bonds

of the society to be temporarily broken or suspended and

called them ‘Techniques of Neutralization’. This is in line

with Hirschi’s control theory, saying that ‘delinquent acts

result when the individual’s bond to society is weak or

broken’ (Hirschi, 1969, as cited in Department of

Criminology, 2009a: 2-24). These neutralization techniques

include denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial

of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, defence of

necessity and appeal to higher loyalties. Hollinger (1991,

as cited in Hollinger and Davis, 2006) found that these

neutralization techniques were highly correlated with staff

associated with dishonesty. Understanding neutralization

techniques used by such staff can help in uncovering and

understanding the individual and situational causes of crime

-13-

at the workplace (Kieffer and Sloan, 2009), which can be

very helpful for the security manager.

The last theory explaining staff dishonesty is the model of

‘Non-Theft’. Mars (1984, as cited in Department of

Criminology, 2009b) examined the view that many individuals

do not see their dishonesty as theft in the first place. The

reasons can be that the dishonest acts can be seen to be

‘victimless’ or the stolen items can be claimed to be

‘valueless’ (Horning, 1970, as cited in Department of

Criminology, 2009b). However, these reasons can form part of

the techniques of neutralization, as described above.

The various forms of staff dishonesty and the explanations

offered by various criminological theories have mostly

related to property deviation. However, an important form of

staff dishonesty is production deviation, commonly called

‘time theft’. This can include unacceptable work practices

like late arrival, early departure, taking unnecessary sick

leave, having long lunch and coffee breaks, socializing with

other colleagues, excessive personal phone calls, using

internet and checking personal emails during working hours,

not completing assigned tasks on time for claiming overtime,

leaving early and coming late from leave and doing other

personal tasks. Time theft is a form of dishonesty because

the employees ‘steal’ the intangible asset of time, which

-14-

their employer purchased from them by the payment of salary

(Department of Criminology, 2009b). This can be a big

problem especially for larger organisations and can become

an informal organisational culture causing huge losses as

most of the employees would start indulging in it. This also

reflects poor employee induction training and lack of

following proper rules and practices. There have been very

few studies on the subject, however it was estimated that

time theft in the US cost the employers roughly $175 billion

every year (Snyder, Broome, Kehoe, McIntrye & Blair, 1991,

as cited in Department of Criminology, 2009b: 5-17). The

security manager in a retail setting has to ensure that

proper policies and rules are in place regarding what is

expected of employees during the working hours and what is

not tolerable. The store might be running on shifts,

therefore proper standard operating procedures need to be in

place to ensure that the employees arrive on time, do proper

handover/takeover and don’t waste their time by having

longer than required meal or coffee breaks or socializing

with other employees.

The discussions above highlight that staff dishonesty is a

very complex problem. No single theory or explanation can

cover all situations, so the prevention strategy has to be

comprehensive with multiple layers of prevention apart from

the physical security and situational crime prevention

-15-

measures. The first line of defence can be pre-recruitment

screening, background checks, psychological integrity tests

and skilful interviewing to weed out prospective dishonest

employees (Hollinger and Davis, 2006).

The next line of defence can include having clear and

comprehensive policies for the workplace. These should

clearly state what would be ‘acceptable’ and what behaviour

would not be tolerated. The policies should also outline

what form of disciplinary control would be exercised and the

forms of punishment clearly outlined for dishonesty and

delinquent behaviour. These policies have to be well

publicized so that staff can clearly understand, as this

would not only have a deterring effect but would also

encourage an organisational culture which could discourage

dishonest behaviour (Department of Criminology, 2009b).

According to ACFE, ‘occupational frauds are much more likely

to be detected by a tip than by audits, controls or any

other means’ (ACFE, 2008: 4). It would have to be ensured

that the organisation and the management are fair and

equitable in their dealings with all employees, to avoid

sabotage. The organisation has to give out a supportive

message to its employees stressing the benevolence of the

company, both as a way of showing that the employee has

really no need to steal, and also to emphasize the status,

-16-

reputation and benefits the employee will be throwing away

by indulging in dishonest practices (Speed, 2005).

Finally, the organisation would need to have effective

internal control and accountability policies to deal with

delinquent staff. In a survey conducted by University of

Leicester in 2003, 70% of the 2,000 people questioned

admitted they would commit fraud if they knew they would get

away with it (CIPD, 2007: 12). Therefore, the policies

should be directed towards increasing the perceived risks

and costs of punishment and reducing the anticipated rewards

as well as inducing guilt or shame. The organisation should

make the staff well aware that wrongdoers would be seriously

punished and sanctions would be applied very quickly

(Bamfield, 1988). All data and information regarding

internal theft and staff dishonesty should be collected and

maintained. This could include historical records of details

of the offender, the offence and the method of perpetration.

Such data can be very useful and can provide a strong basis

for understanding the criminal behaviour and providing an

ecologically valid foundation to the security manager for

developing crime prevention strategies (Dodd, 2003).

There can also be certain social measures and interventions

to reduce the motivation to offend. These social crime

prevention measures would work to create a conducive and

-17-

equitable atmosphere for every individual. As discussed by

Shaftoe (2002), a comprehensive social crime prevention

program could consist of providing support for parents

before and after child-birth; parenting skills training and

family support; provision of good quality nurseries and pre-

schools; providing personal, social and moral education in

schools; provision of adequate playgrounds and areas of

youth activities; providing training and employment for

useful or meaningful work; providing help to overcome or

reduce the damage caused by alcoholism or drug abuse and

mediation or other community based services for conflict

resolution.

It can be concluded that managing and preventing the offence

of staff dishonesty is clearly of vital importance to any

security manager in order to prevent losses to the

organisation. The various forms of staff dishonesty provide

an insight to the security manager to understand the

problem. It is also very important to understand why some

staff indulged in dishonest practices and to understand this

deviance in the light of various criminological theories.

The possible neutralization techniques used by deviant staff

to explain their behaviour are also useful for the security

manager in understanding the offence committed and

formulating preventive strategies. It was also found that

the problem cannot be explained by a single theory or factor

-18-

and staff dishonesty depends on a variety of factors and

circumstances. The role of a security manager in a retail

store highlighted that staff dishonesty is a complex problem

and can only be managed by a well planned strategy and

multi-pronged approach with different layers of prevention,

including situational as well as social crime prevention

measures. This is only possible if the security manager has

a deep understanding of the problem in light of the

explanations offered by various criminological theories.

Reference List

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners ACFE (2008) Report to

the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse,

http://www.acfe.com/documents/2008-rttn.pdf (accessed on

01/03/2010).

-19-

Bamfield, J. (1998) ‘A Breach of Trust: Employee Collusion

and Theft from Major Retailers’ in M. Gill (ed) Crime at Work:

Increasing the Risk for Offenders Volume II, Basingstoke, Palgrave

Macmillan Ltd, 123-142.

BBC (2010) ‘Surprise fall in UK unemployment’, 20th January,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/8469648.stm

(accessed on 08/03/2010).

Beck, A. (2005) ‘Tackling Shrinkage Throughout the Supply

Chain’ in M. Gill (ed) Managing Security: Crime at Work Volume III,

Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 59-80.

Beck, A. (2006a) STAFF DISHONESTY IN THE RETAIL SECTOR: Understanding

the Opportunities, An ECR Europe White Paper, Brussels: ECR

Europe.

Beck, A. (2006b) ‘Shrinkage and Radio Frequency

Identification (RFID): Prospects, Problems and

Practicalities’ in M. Gill (ed) The Handbook of Security,

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 462-482.

Beck, A. and Willis, A. (1998) ‘Sales and Security: Striking

the Balance’ in M. Gill (ed) Crime at Work: Increasing the Risk for

-20-

Offenders Volume II, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 95-

106.

Beck, A., and Peacock, C. (2009) New Loss Prevention: Redefining

Shrinkage Management, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

British Retail Consortium (2009) RETAIL CRIME SURVEY 2009,

London: British Retail Consortium

http://www.brc.org.uk/downloads/BRCCrimeSurvey2009.pdf

(accessed on 02/03/2010).

Challenger, D. (1995) Feeling Good at Work – An Antidote to Workplace

Crime, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

CIPD (2007) TACKING STAFF FRAUD AND DISHONESTY: Managing and

Mitigating the Risks, London: CIPD.

Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979) ‘Social Change and Crime

Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach’ American Sociological

Review 44 (4): 588-608 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589

(accessed 23/11/2009).

Department of Criminology (2009a) Crime and Crime Prevention

Module, Leicester: Department of Criminology, University of

Leicester.

-21-

Department of Criminology (2009b) Managing Security in the

Workplace Module, Leicester: Department of Criminology,

University of Leicester.

Ditton, J. (1997) ‘Process: Becoming a Fiddler’ in Part Time

Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage, London: Macmillan, 16-

43.

Dodd, N. J. (2003) ‘Troublemakers and Nothing to Lose

Employee Offenders Identified from a Corporate Crime Data

Sample’ in M. Gill (ed) Managing Security: Crime at Work Volume III,

Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 181-194.

Friedrichs, D. O. (2002) ‘Occupational crime, occupational

deviance, and workplace crime: Sorting out the difference’

Criminal Justice 2 (3): 243-256

http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/3/243

(accessed on 03/03/2010).

Hollinger, R.C., & Davis, J.L. (2006) ‘Employee Theft and

Staff Dishonesty’ in M. Gill (ed) The Handbook of Security,

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 203-228.

Kieffer, S. M., & Sloan J. J. (2009) ‘Overcoming Moral

Hurdles: Using Techniques of Neutralization by White-Collar

Suspects as an Interrogation Tool’ Security Journal, 22 (4): 317-

-22-

330

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sj/journal/v22/n4/pdf/83500

87a.pdf (accessed 15/01/2010).

Kollewe, J. and Wearden, G. (2009) ‘Timeline: Britain’s

mounting job losses’, guardian.co.uk, 20 February,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/13/recession-

retail (accessed on 08/03/2010).

Mars, G. (2006) ‘Changes in occupational deviance: Scams,

fiddles and sabotage in the twenty-first century’, Crime, Law

and Social Change, 45: 285-296.

Sennewald, C.A. (2003) Effective Security Management, Boston:

Butterworth-Heinnemann.

Shaftoe, H. (2002) Social Crime Prevention – Interventions to Reduce the

Motivation to Offend, Bristol: University of the West of England

http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/commsafe/tallin.asp (accessed

on 09/03/2010).

Speed, M. (2005) ‘Reducing Employee Dishonesty: In Search of

the Right Strategy’ in M. Gill (ed) Managing Security: Crime at

Work Volume III, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 157-180.

-23-