• Results from a survey of 1,007 New Zealand consumers aged 18+ show 66% of adults accept facial recognition’s (FR) use, even if the harm reduction is minimal
• This jumps to 79% if harm reduces by just 0.7% and 89% if harm reduces by 10%
• 40% of respondents say they would feel safer knowing FR was in use
• 6% of respondents say they will never accept FR, even if it reduces harm by 100%
• Survey used a nationally representative sample of New Zealand shoppers
• Findings follow six-month trial of FR at 25 Foodstuffs North Island stores
New research reveals how New Zealand consumers feel about the use of facial recognition (FR) in retail settings, with 66% of Kiwis accepting of the use of FR, even if the impact it has on reducing harm from incidents of retail crime is minimal.
In February, Foodstuffs North Island (FSNI), the co-operative behind the North Island’s New World, PAK’nSAVE and Four Square stores started a trial of FR at 25 New World and PAK’nSAVE stores.
The objective of the trial was to determine if the technology could help stores identify repeat offenders and enhance the safety of both staff and customers while respecting the privacy of everyone involved. As part of the trial, FSNI commissioned a nationally representative survey to understand how New Zealanders feel about facial recognition being used in retail stores.
Foodstuffs North Island General Counsel, Julian Benefield says it’s important to understand what New Zealanders think about FR to ensure any future decisions reflect customer attitudes.
“Keeping our team members and customers safe and well is always our top priority. At the same time, we’re committed to being one of the most customer-focused retailers in the world. That’s why it’s so important for us to understand how customers feel about the technology we use.”
“We’ve approached using facial recognition in a responsible way, particularly by ensuring that it’s only the first step in a process where our people always have the final say. Most of the shoppers surveyed didn’t have a problem with the use of facial recognition, despite potential impacts on privacy, if it can reduce harm to shoppers and retail staff and be used in the way that we have used it.”
The research also looked at customer experiences and how safe they feel, with most of those surveyed saying they’ve either witnessed or experienced some sort of harm when shopping in retail. 63% said they’ve seen others being physically assaulted, verbally abused or seen disorderly conduct when visiting a retail store while 44% said they’ve personally experienced physical assaults, verbal abuse or been affected by others’ disorderly conduct.
FR matches the faces of people who enter a store against that store’s record of past offenders and accomplices. When the system detects a facial match with at least 90% accuracy, two specially trained team members are alerted and both must confirm a match identification before the information can be acted on.
Independent analytics firm Scarlatti was appointed to monitor and evaluate FSNI’s six-month trial, further to the co-op’s engagement with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Foodstuffs North Island is now awaiting the findings of the Privacy Commissioner’s public inquiry into its trial, before deciding on its future use of FR across its stores.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Understanding experiences and how safe consumer are feeling at the moment
• Most of those surveyed have either witnessed or experienced some sort of harm when shopping in retail
• 63% have seen others being physically assaulted, verbally abused or seen disorderly conduct when visiting a retail store
• 44% have personally experienced physical assaults, verbal abuse or been affected by others’ disorderly conduct
• 27% can’t say they feel entirely safe when shopping retail
• When knowing FR is being used, 40% said they would feel safer
How levels of acceptance change across different levels of harm reduction
The majority of New Zealanders were open to the use of FR in retail
• 66% said they will accept it even if the harm minimisation is very small
• 79% would accept FR even if it only achieved a 0.7% reduction in harm
• 86% would accept FR if it achieved a 3% reduction in harm
• 89% would accept FR if it achieved a 10% reduction in harm
• 6% said they will never accept it even if it meant 100% harm reduction – they were philosophically opposed to it
