Loss prevention leaders text peers. Regional AP managers compare notes over coffee. Photos, descriptions, and patterns of known offenders circulate quietly across the industry. When something serious happens—especially something violent—those informal networks light up fast.

So if sharing information is already happening, why hasn’t retail cracked the code on formal, scalable, retailer-to-retailer sharing?

The answer sits at the intersection of value, trust, and risk.

‍

Why the Network Effect Matters

Organized retail crime and violent incidents don’t respect store banners, cities, or regions. The same offender—or crew—often hits multiple retailers before patterns are formally connected.

A true network effect would allow retailers to:

• Identify repeat and serial offenders faster
• Link incidents across retailers and locations in near real time
• Escalate to law enforcement earlier, with stronger evidence
• Move from reactive to preventative safety strategies
  
  

In theory, this should be a no-brainer. In practice, it’s anything but.

‍

Why Informal Sharing Works — and Formal Sharing Doesn’t

Retailers already share information informally because it feels:

• Fast
• Controlled
• Low risk
• Human
  
  

But once sharing becomes formalized, everything changes.

Now the questions start:

• Who owns the data?
• How is it validated?
• What if the information is wrong?
• What if it comes back to us?
• What happens if the wrong person is implicated?
  
  

The fear isn’t hypothetical. Retailers are acutely aware that one mistake can become a legal, brand, or reputational issue. That risk makes trust incredibly hard to scale beyond personal relationships.

‍

The Pros and Cons of a True Retail Network

The Upside
‍

• Faster pattern recognition across retailers
• Quicker involvement of law enforcement
• Better protection against violent repeat offenders
• Reduced reliance on siloed, store-by-store intelligence
  
  

The Downside
‍

• Deep trust concerns between retailers
• Legal exposure if information is misused or misinterpreted
• Unclear accountability when multiple parties act on shared data
• Fear of losing control over how information is used downstream
  
  

This tension is why the industry talks endlessly about the network effect—but hasn’t fully realized it.

‍

Why Law Enforcement Has Become the “Safe Middle”

One thing has worked: keeping law enforcement in the middle.

When information flows retailer → law enforcement → retailer, trust increases dramatically. The data feels:

• Governed
• Purpose-bound
• Less likely to be misused
  
  

This is why partnerships involving law enforcement—rather than pure retailer-to-retailer exchanges—have gained traction. They provide structure, accountability, and legal cover that retailers simply don’t have with one another.

But this model isn’t perfect either. It can be slower, and it doesn’t fully solve the need for rapid cross-retailer awareness before incidents escalate.

‍

Is Anonymous Sharing the Missing Piece?

One idea that continues to surface is anonymous sharing.

What if retailers could:

• Share offender-related intelligence without revealing the source
• Contribute to pattern recognition without exposing themselves
• Receive alerts when an individual appears across multiple retailers—without knowing who submitted what
  
  

Anonymity could reduce fear, but it raises new questions:

• How do you ensure accuracy?
• How do you prevent abuse?
• How do you balance anonymity with actionability?
  
  

There’s no easy answer—but ignoring the problem isn’t an option.

‍

The Path Forward

The reality is that no single model has solved this yet.

It may ultimately require:

• A hybrid of anonymous sharing and law-enforcement mediation
• Clear guardrails around what is shared and how it’s used
• Technology that focuses on patterns and behavior, not identity
• Systems that prioritize safety first, not shrink metrics
  
  

What’s clear is this: retailers want the network effect. They already behave as if it exists. The challenge is building a process that earns trust at scale.

Until then, the industry will continue to rely on informal channels—effective, but limited—while searching for a better way to work together against organized crime and violent offenders.

‍