"Theft" is such a value-loaded, moralizing term. It collapses a wide spectrum of socioeconomic realities into a single criminalized label, ignoring the structural inequities that often shape people's choices. When we say "loss prevention", we're deliberately reframing the conversation away from individual blame and toward systems, environments, and institutional responsibility. Loss prevention isn't about vilifying people - it's about acknowledging that harm occurs within a broader context. It centers the idea that organizations can design safer, more equitable spaces that minimize material loss without resorting to punitive narratives rooted in classism, racism, and centuries-old assumptions about who is "dangerous". Calling something "theft" externalizes accountability onto the most vulnerable actors; calling it "loss" recognizes that institutions have agency, too. And preventing that loss focuses on proactive, compassionate strategies rather than reactive punishment.

Do you know if smaller shops in india/asia also make use of this?

I did not claim they guide you to the exit. What I said is that you don't get lost if you stay on the path. A scenic route to the exit is still a route to the exit.

Also: if you want to get to an actual exit it is mandatory (at least over here) to have clearly visible, emergency exit signs so people can get out in case of fire.