In confidential conversations I have had with suppliers recently  farmers and regional producers from across England and Wales  it appears that pressured buyers from the multiples have increased the unreasonable use of their powers since the code was unveiled.
I have, personally, counted no fewer than 12 separate allegations of buyer bullying since mid-summer. And the claims point the finger at two of the big four  one in particular  and three so-called second tier retailers which currently are not covered by the code.
And in the light of the sums of money reportedly demanded that are well above what is deemed normal trading practice, the claims make it clear that some buyers, at least, are laughing at the code to the tune of umpteen thousands of pounds in unexpected demands.
Given the tougher climate in food retail, and the need to achieve profit forecasts, perhaps one shouldn't be too surprised. But when you take account of a number of trade association officials who have also privately deplored the bullying practices  one even summing them up as a "fiasco"  you have a depressing scenario.
Yet  and this should surprise no one  not a single official complaint has been lodged with the DTI against any of the multiples.
For anyone who believed that suppliers, large or small, would complain was living in clouduckooland, given the understandable fear, among farmers in particular, of retribution from the high street giants.
Lord Haskins, writing the Saturday Essay in The Grocer last week, suggested the creation of a retail ombudsman to whom suppliers could forward their complaints, while maintaining their confidentiality. That's a good idea in principle, but judging by the expressions of fear which have coloured the comments of my confidential complainants, I cannot see it working.
To paraphrase the remarks made to me by a Midlands-based food producer last week: "These days, there is no guarantee that our anonymity could be preserved by anyone in an official position. We are stymied and we will just have to put up with the unwarranted pressures. Trouble is, how many of us will survive?"
But surely the most encouraging comment to come out of the debate is the suggestion that one man is trusted by many suppliers to look sympathetically into the issue  Sir Don Curry who chaired the Commission into the Future of Farming and Food. He is seen as a respected figure who could tackle this issue head on and achieve results, while at the same time preserving suppliers' anonymity.
Trouble is, what happens to the wretched code? Certainly, the present version appears toothless. For a start it should apply to all retailers with more than 10 stores, and it should include all the big processors and suppliers dealing with the UK's farming community.
In addition, of course, there is the perception that, in some chains, the public expressions of support for the code by the big guns in the boardroom are not being passed down to the buyers.
Lord Haskins was right, therefore, to suggest that directors should be pressed to ensure that their buying teams follow the code.
Meanwhile the NFU and the IGD who were, after all, instrumental in drawing up a voluntary code before government got its hands on it, should get together soon to prepare firm proposals for a new one.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
I have, personally, counted no fewer than 12 separate allegations of buyer bullying since mid-summer. And the claims point the finger at two of the big four  one in particular  and three so-called second tier retailers which currently are not covered by the code.
And in the light of the sums of money reportedly demanded that are well above what is deemed normal trading practice, the claims make it clear that some buyers, at least, are laughing at the code to the tune of umpteen thousands of pounds in unexpected demands.
Given the tougher climate in food retail, and the need to achieve profit forecasts, perhaps one shouldn't be too surprised. But when you take account of a number of trade association officials who have also privately deplored the bullying practices  one even summing them up as a "fiasco"  you have a depressing scenario.
Yet  and this should surprise no one  not a single official complaint has been lodged with the DTI against any of the multiples.
For anyone who believed that suppliers, large or small, would complain was living in clouduckooland, given the understandable fear, among farmers in particular, of retribution from the high street giants.
Lord Haskins, writing the Saturday Essay in The Grocer last week, suggested the creation of a retail ombudsman to whom suppliers could forward their complaints, while maintaining their confidentiality. That's a good idea in principle, but judging by the expressions of fear which have coloured the comments of my confidential complainants, I cannot see it working.
To paraphrase the remarks made to me by a Midlands-based food producer last week: "These days, there is no guarantee that our anonymity could be preserved by anyone in an official position. We are stymied and we will just have to put up with the unwarranted pressures. Trouble is, how many of us will survive?"
But surely the most encouraging comment to come out of the debate is the suggestion that one man is trusted by many suppliers to look sympathetically into the issue  Sir Don Curry who chaired the Commission into the Future of Farming and Food. He is seen as a respected figure who could tackle this issue head on and achieve results, while at the same time preserving suppliers' anonymity.
Trouble is, what happens to the wretched code? Certainly, the present version appears toothless. For a start it should apply to all retailers with more than 10 stores, and it should include all the big processors and suppliers dealing with the UK's farming community.
In addition, of course, there is the perception that, in some chains, the public expressions of support for the code by the big guns in the boardroom are not being passed down to the buyers.
Lord Haskins was right, therefore, to suggest that directors should be pressed to ensure that their buying teams follow the code.
Meanwhile the NFU and the IGD who were, after all, instrumental in drawing up a voluntary code before government got its hands on it, should get together soon to prepare firm proposals for a new one.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
No comments yet