This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

A Code of Practice for Grocery Goods Undertakings and An Ombudsman: How to Do a Lot of Harm by Trying to Do a Little Good

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Gorecki, Paul K.

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in its August 2009 Consultation Paper, Code of Practice for Grocery Goods Undertakings, argues that a Code governing grocery supplier/retailer relations, enforced by an Ombudsman, should be introduced. The Code constrains the behaviour of the retailer with respect to certain practices that, for example, shift risk from the retailer to the supplier as well as those result in unexpected costs to suppliers. The rationale for the Code appears to be that due to the devaluation of sterling, combined with the recession, retailers are able to put increased pressure on local suppliers for lower prices, which in turn squeezes suppliers' margins. The paper argues that the Consultation Paper does not present a sound rationale for the Code, in reality the Code is a form of protectionism occasioned by the inflow of lower priced imports. Local suppliers should adapt through developing better products and becoming more efficient, rather than seeking shelter from market forces. The impact of the Code will likely be to lead to: higher consumer prices lowering consumer welfare and thus inconsistent with the declared aim of the Code; increased costs of doing business with local suppliers thus leading to an incentive for retailers to use more imports; and, perhaps, a less competitive grocery sector. It is argued that the Consultation Paper should be withdrawn and reissued, but in a manner consistent with the government's better regulation agenda which is currently ignored. To the extent that the issue of concern is excessive buyer power of retailers then that should be addressed directly: by liberalising the Retail Planning Guidelines as the Competition Authority has been arguing for sometime; and/or sponsoring entry of new retailers; and/or amending competition law, if a problem exists and can be demonstrated to exist, but retain the competition test. The answer, based on the evidence presented in the Consultation Paper, is not the Code.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091006120555/WP320.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in its series Papers with number WP320.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp320

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2
Phone: (353-1) 863 2000
Fax: (353-1) 863 2100
Email:
Web page: http://www.esri.ie
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Sarah Burns).

Related research
Keywords: better regulation/buyer power/COUNTERVAILING BUYER POWER/grocery code of practice/grocery ombudsman/grocery products/imports/sterling devaluation;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can import bibliographic info in various formats into you bibliographic tool, or just into your word processor. See under "publisher info" on each abstract page.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.