The basic goals of the Responsible Retailing Forum, which just convened its 5th annual national conference, are startlingly simple: stop sales of alcohol beverages (and tobacco) to: 1) underage buyers and 2) intoxicated patrons. But the task of identifying and spreading the appropriate methods, messages and mechanics of responsible retailing remains a complex challenge, given the dizzying array of retailers and "stakeholders" in the issue. RRF provides a true "forum"; FTC counsel Janet Evans called it "the organization to deal with these issues. . . a good think tank." In addition to some of the largest chain retailers in the US - Wal-Mart, 7-11, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips - RRF attracts federal and state government officials, enforcement and health agency personnel, researchers, suppliers and distributors. Each of the interested players brings different perspectives and insights, some aligned, some not. Once again, this year's forum raised more questions than answers as participants discussed the multiple legal, cultural and financial barriers to "Advancing the Art and Science of Responsible Retailing," the meeting's theme.
Perhaps the thorniest issue of all is that while many national chains have clearly bought into responsible retailing - RRF's president Brad Krevor figures RRF represents about 10% of retail locations and a higher share of sales - the "overwhelming majority" of mostly independent retailers haven't adopted responsible retailing practices. And even if RRF were to achieve a "Herculean accomplishment" of 80-90% compliance, that still leaves plenty of illegal sales. Progress can be identified on the individual store (or chain) level. But the critical "community impact" remains elusive. Several other key questions/complications emerged at the meeting.
- Should "incentives" (which appear to work) be provided to clerks/managers/stores for checking IDs and refusing illegal sales? If so, what should they be and who should provide them? In some cases trade practice laws would prevent suppliers from providing retailers such "things of value." Or should responsible retailing simply be expected and effected by strict enforcement - not inexpensive either -- with real penalties for infractions?
- Training of clerks appears to be effective, but only for a short time. How can many independent C-stores (with average profit margins under 1% according to a recent report) bear the cost of constant training, given the massive turnover levels in the industry?
- Experts are trying to build a "business case" for adopting responsible retailing around cost, benefit and community goodwill issues. But where enforcement is lax or less, it may be cheaper to take the chance on an occasional fine for selling to illegal purchasers.
- Retailers can invest in and adopt all of the expensive, elaborate and elegant interventions that emerge, but it all comes down to a decision made by a $6-$8/hour clerk who may be extraordinarily busy and/or having a bad day