{"id":219,"date":"2026-03-23T20:32:26","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T20:32:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/igfirst.com.ng\/resources\/inventory-leakage-vs-theft\/"},"modified":"2026-09-26T06:50:02","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T06:50:02","slug":"inventory-leakage-vs-theft","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/igfirst.com.ng\/resources\/inventory-leakage-vs-theft\/","title":{"rendered":"Stock is missing. Investigate the gap before accusing your team."},"content":{"rendered":"

A stock difference proves that the count and the record disagree. It does not, by itself, prove theft.<\/strong> Start by checking the product, unit, location, timing and movement trail. Preserve what you find so any next decision rests on evidence.<\/p>\n

Finding a shortage is upsetting. You have paid for those goods, trusted people to handle them and probably spent an evening counting. It is understandable to want an immediate explanation.<\/p>\n

Still, accusing the wrong person can leave the original problem untouched. A delayed transfer, a wrongly recorded return or a pack counted as a piece may continue to create differences tomorrow. Investigate the discrepancy first, then decide what the evidence supports.<\/p>\n

Make sure you are comparing the same thing<\/h2>\n

Agree a cut-off for the count and the records you are using. If sales continue during the count, note them so the physical figure and expected figure refer to the same point in time. Confirm the location and check any goods in a display, packing area or returns section.<\/p>\n

Identify the exact product and variation. Two similar names or nearly identical cartons can cause a false shortage. Count using the same unit as the record, then make any conversion explicit. A carton, pack and piece cannot be added together as though they are interchangeable.<\/p>\n

Have another trained person recount the disputed item when practical. Preserve the first count and the second result. A recount should add evidence, not erase the record of why you started investigating.<\/p>\n

Follow the movements before changing the balance<\/h2>\n

Review opening stock, accepted receipts, sales, transfers, returns, damage and adjustments for the relevant period. Compare them with the physical activity. You are looking for missing, late, duplicated or incorrectly described movements.<\/p>\n

Check both sides of a transfer. Goods may have left one location but be waiting for confirmation at another. A return may be physically present without having been recorded in the appropriate condition. A sale may have used the wrong product or unit. Each possibility needs a specific check, not a general explanation that \u201cthe system is wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

Avoid immediately adjusting the record to match the count. That can make the totals look tidy while hiding the cause. Where a justified adjustment is needed, keep the reason, supporting information and authorised decision available for review.<\/p>\n

\"Start<\/picture>
A recommended investigation routine, not a conclusion about staff conduct.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Separate three different findings<\/h2>\n

A recording error is a mismatch between what happened and how it was entered. Examples include the wrong unit, a duplicated receipt or a delayed transfer entry. Correcting the record may resolve the difference, but the team also needs a way to prevent repetition.<\/p>\n

A process gap leaves you unable to prove a movement. Goods may have been moved without a clear handover or an adjustment may have no useful reason. That does not establish who took anything. It does show where your receiving, movement or review routine needs improvement.<\/p>\n

A concern about misconduct requires the relevant evidence and a proper investigation. Keep findings factual and involve the appropriate management or professional support. A stock report is one part of the record; it is not a substitute for a fair process or a conclusion about someone\u2019s intent.<\/p>\n

A worked example: six pieces appear to be missing<\/h2>\n

This is fictional. The stock record shows 60 pieces at the agreed cut-off, while a physical count finds 54. The team first confirms that the product, unit and location are correct. The recount also finds 54.<\/p>\n

Reviewing the movement trail reveals a transfer of six pieces prepared for another branch. The goods are found in the dispatch area, with the receiving step still outstanding. The apparent shortage now has a specific explanation to check and complete.<\/p>\n

That outcome would be different if the six pieces could not be located or the transfer evidence did not support the explanation. In that case, the discrepancy stays open. The useful habit is following the evidence through to a finding rather than stopping at the first plausible story.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/picture>
Fictional example: locating goods requires a verified follow-up, not an assumption.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Use a worksheet that keeps facts separate from assumptions<\/h2>\n

For each disputed item, record the count cut-off, location, product and unit. Add the expected figure, counted figure and difference. Then list the movements checked, evidence found and checks still outstanding.<\/p>\n

Give the issue an owner and a review date. Describe the finding in plain language: \u201csix pieces located in dispatch; receiving confirmation pending\u201d or \u201cdifference remains unexplained after recount and movement review.\u201d Avoid labels such as \u201cstolen\u201d unless a completed investigation supports that conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Record<\/th>\nWhat to write<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
The difference<\/td>\nProduct, unit, location, cut-off, expected and counted quantities<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Checks completed<\/td>\nRecount, receipts, sales, transfers, returns and adjustments examined<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Finding<\/td>\nThe evidence-supported explanation, or what remains unknown<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Next action<\/td>\nResponsible person, decision needed and review date<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Repair the process that allowed the uncertainty<\/h2>\n

If the cause is a unit error, improve the product and receiving instructions. If transfers are late, define when dispatch and receipt are recorded and who checks outstanding movements. If damaged goods mix with saleable stock, give them a clear physical and recorded treatment.<\/p>\n

For adjustments, require a reason that another person can understand. \u201cCorrection\u201d says very little. A useful explanation connects the change to a recount, damaged item or identified recording error, along with the relevant approval.<\/p>\n

Review recurring patterns by item, location and type of action. One corrected difference may be an isolated mistake. Repeated missing handovers indicate a routine that needs attention. Keep the discussion about the evidence so staff know what to improve.<\/p>\n

Where IGFirstERP helps the investigation<\/h2>\n

IGFirstERP brings stock by location, recorded movements, staff actions and reporting into the daily operating record. That gives an owner a clearer starting point for examining a discrepancy than searching through separate messages and reconstructed spreadsheets.<\/p>\n

The quality of the investigation still depends on what staff record and what the business verifies physically. Use the reports to identify what needs checking, then compare them with the relevant goods and documents. A detailed record helps ask better questions; it does not eliminate the need to investigate.<\/p>\n

Talk to staff using the evidence you have<\/h2>\n

Ask the person involved to explain a specific recorded event rather than defend the whole shortage. Show the product, date and movement you are checking. Give them the opportunity to point out a missing receipt, wrong unit or another record that may clarify it.<\/p>\n

Keep an account of the explanation and the evidence used to check it. An explanation can be plausible without being established. Likewise, a poor recollection does not prove intent. If the matter requires a formal investigation, pass the preserved records to the appropriate responsible person and follow the business\u2019s process.<\/p>\n

That approach helps keep a stock review focused and fair. It also makes the final finding easier to explain, because the business can show the checks it performed instead of relying on a heated conversation.<\/p>\n

Your first-discrepancy checklist<\/h2>\n