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.

A woman sits at a desk in a modern office, holding and examining papers. She is dressed in professional attire, with a laptop, notepad, and documents spread out in front of her. Amidst the shelves, plants, and framed certificates, she scrutinizes contract clauses for wilful breaches.

Wilful Breaches of Contract – Do Exclusion Clauses and Liability Caps Still Work?

Can deliberate or wilful contract breaches still benefit from clauses that limit or exclude liability? The English High Court recently considered this issue in Mott Macdonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd,[1] which confirmed that clauses limiting or excluding liability for claims will be given effect on their plain and ordinary meaning. If any limitation or exclusion is not intended to apply to a deliberate or wilful action, clear wording to that effect is required.
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.

Australian Hague Rules: party to shipping dispute rails against arbitration clause

In Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG, [1] the High Court of Australia assessed whether engagement in arbitration in a foreign jurisdiction could contravene law designed to protect cargo owners. The decision is an illustration of the stability of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution.

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.