It was with interest that I read earlier in the week about the new scheme launched by the NFU to encourage more farmers to report breaches of the Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCoP).
Increasingly over the last three or four years retailers have become more mindful of the existence of The Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009. In practical terms this started with some buyers being reluctant to discuss prospective retail prices when negotiating cost prices, and more recently has been reflected in the interpretation by some retailers as to how they accept or otherwise, contributions towards travel and hotel expenses and entertainment.
There was a significant step of intention earlier last year with the appointment of Christine Tacon as the Groceries Code Adjudicator, responsible for enforcing the Code of Practice which regulates the interactions between the 10 largest supermarkets and their supply base.
All of this appears on the face of it great news for farmers and fresh produce suppliers alike, but the problem remains that no supplier wants to rock their own boat for fear of the long term consequences. On that basis, the first case would only ever emerge when a retailer’s conduct has been so extreme that a supplier is left with nothing to lose, and if the word on the street is correct, this may now have occurred.
There has already been some comment to suggest that the process itself is exceptionally legalistic, and as a consequence would be difficult to navigate for a small company or family business; in addition, that ‘closed information’ is not admissible. This suggests that internal information about inappropriate actions relayed from principled members of a retailer’s staff to an affected supplier is unlikely to be usable in evidence because of the likely consequences for the individual concerned. None of this is encouraging.
Phil Hudson, head of farming and food at the NFU is reported to have said that it was due to NFU members continuing to report breaches of the GSCoP code that the union lobbied so hard to get an adjudicator appointed, and is delighted that there is now a platform whereby members can submit evidence anonymously through their representative body. How effective will this anonymous reporting be though? Surely to bring anyone to court, hard evidence is needed and people need to stand up?
As someone employed in a relatively high-profile position supplying many of the major multiples and talking on a daily basis to buyers, it is a daunting prospect in the light of a difficult negotiation to contemplate presenting a public case to highlight a grievance, but surely this is what is required by big players, and for the commission to then take the case up. I will keep observing progress with interest.
No comments yet