Inventory shrinkage: identifying the source of your losses

Written by Guillaume Pouillier, CNAPS-licensed private detective, licence no. AGD 095-2024-03-06-20190240581 · Last updated: July 14, 2026

Shrinkage is not an accounting fate: it is a phenomenon with perpetrators. Our investigation separates the causes, internal diversion, collusion with delivery staff or suppliers, organised shoplifting, fictitious credits and discounts, then attributes them to dated, proven facts.

Where does shrinkage actually come from?

Rarely a single cause. Sector studies attribute most of it to internal and external theft, completed by procedure fraud (fictitious credit notes, diverted discounts, disguised “administrative” shrinkage) and collusion with third parties, delivery drivers, contractors, sometimes suppliers.

The alert signal is almost always statistical: one department, one team, one time slot or one store dropping away from the others. Our first task is to read those gaps with you and target the investigation, no need to watch a whole site when the numbers point to the night stockroom or till number 3. That analysis phase avoids heavy deployments and saves weeks.

Which investigative means do we deploy?

Depending on the target: discreet observation of sensitive areas (stockrooms, loading bays, car parks), mystery shopping visits to test tills and procedures, surveillance of at-risk time slots, OSINT on resale (second-hand platforms, social media), and cross-checks with your internal data.

Resale is often the perpetrators’ weak link: diverted goods resurface on second-hand platforms, sometimes a few kilometres from the store, in volumes and references that betray their origin. Our OSINT watch documents those listings and links them to the stock gaps. On the ground, everything stays within the legal framework: areas open to the public or where the employer is legitimate, staff-representative information where employment law requires it, constant proportionality, which is what makes the evidence usable in disciplinary proceedings.

What to do with the evidence: dismissal, complaint, both?

The two routes complement each other: disciplinary proceedings (up to dismissal for gross misconduct) answer the managerial urgency; the criminal complaint (theft, art. 311-1; breach of trust, art. 314-1) handles heavy cases and external accomplices. Our report is built to serve both.

Admissibility is decided upstream: an employee cannot be dismissed on the basis of an unlawful or unfair surveillance device. Our method is therefore aligned with French employment case law, legitimate areas and moments, proportionality, staff-representative information where required, and validated with your counsel before deployment. A well-built file often ends without a hearing: faced with dated, photographed facts, settlement or acknowledgment is the most frequent outcome.

How long to identify the source of the losses?

Two to six weeks in most files: one to two weeks of analysis and targeting, then the observation sessions and test visits on the designated slots. Structured external collusion takes more patience than individual diversion.

The device is reversible and progressive: we start narrow (one site, one slot, one hypothesis) and only widen if the findings justify it. At the end, beyond identifying the perpetrators, the report points out the procedural weaknesses that made the fraud possible, cashing-up, credit-note management, goods-in control, so the shrinkage does not rebuild itself with other actors six months later.

How much does it cost?

Our assignments start at €85/hour (excl. VAT) (full day €850, volume discounts). Every case gets a free written quote before any commitment, no hidden fees.

The budget follows the targeting: a few sessions suffice once the analysis has designated the right slot. Set it against the site’s annual shrinkage, the investigation almost always costs less than a single month of losses.

See the full price list.

Frequently asked questions