What the 2025 Grocery Supply Code means for suppliers

Big changes to the Grocery Supply Code take effect on 1 May — and if you supply groceries to one of New Zealand's regulated retailers, it's worth knowing what's new. The 2025 Code has been designed with suppliers in mind. It strengthens existing protections in several important areas and adds new ones. Here's a plain-language breakdown.
Author(s): Michael Jamieson

You're better protected against retaliation

Protection against retailer retaliation has always existed under the Grocery Industry Cooperation Act (GICA), but the 2025 Code makes it more explicit. A new clause (clause 30) says clearly: if you exercise a right under the Code, or even indicate that you might, a retailer cannot take any action that is detrimental to you as a result.

The Code lists examples of what detrimental action looks like — delisting your products, changing their in-store or online placement, cancelling orders, reducing restocking, or terminating your supply contract. That list isn’t exhaustive.

Critically, this protection extends to your interactions with the Commerce Commission and the Grocery Industry Dispute Resolution Scheme. You can contact NZDRC to explore your options, raise concerns, or start a dispute process without fear that doing so will be used against you. The onus is on the retailer to prove that any action it takes is driven by genuine commercial reasons — not retaliation.

Investment buying is addressed

“Investment buying” — where a retailer over-orders stock at a promotional price and then sells the excess at full price after the promotion ends — has long been a frustration for suppliers. The 2025 Code deals with this directly. From 1 May, if a retailer engages in this practice, it must repay you the portion of your promotional funding that relates to the over ordered stock.

Charging for wastage is no longer permitted

Under the 2023 Code, retailers were generally prevented from passing wastage costs on to suppliers once those goods were out of the supplier’s control — but supply agreements could carve out exceptions. That carve-out has been removed. Clause 14 of the 2025 Code makes it a blanket prohibition: if the groceries are no longer in your hands, the retailer cannot charge you for wastage. This now aligns with how shrinkage is treated.

What this means in practice

These changes collectively shift more accountability onto retailers and give suppliers clearer grounds to push back when things go wrong. Enhanced record-keeping requirements will also make it easier for the Commerce Commission to scrutinise retailer decision-making.

If you’re in a dispute with a retailer — or wondering whether you might be heading toward one — NZDRC administers the Grocery Industry Dispute Resolution Scheme and can help you understand your options. Visit grocerydispute.co.nz to find out more.

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

Two construction workers stand in an unfinished building. One worker, in a red shirt and red helmet, converses with another worker, in a dark shirt, blue overalls, and a white helmet. The white-helmeted worker gestures while explaining something. Tools and materials are visible in the background.

Council wins in battle with contractor

In Thomas Barnes & Sons plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC) the English High Court dismissed a claim for wrongful termination from a contractor despite agreeing that they were entitled to an extension of time.
A person wearing blue jeans and a white shirt holds several coins in their right hand, with their left pocket turned inside out, against a plain background.

Where do directors’ duties lie once insolvency looms?

Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside arbitral award over claim lawyer couldn’t read witness’ body language in virtual hearing.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment which examined the role of directors when a company becomes, or is likely to become, insolvent. The decision looked at when directors were to consider the overriding interests of the company’s creditors when dealing with insolvency.
Aerial view of a cargo ship docked at a port. The ship is loaded with multicolored shipping containers. Three large green cranes are positioned alongside the ship, with their shadows cast on the deck and water. The port area has rows of containers.

Supreme Court of New South Wales finds force majeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage to goods in transit

In Woolworths Group Ltd v Twentieth Super Pace Nominees Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 344, the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied a narrow interpretation to the meaning and effect of a force majeure clause, finding that it did not override other clauses in the contract, or alter the overall allocation of risk intended by the parties.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.