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.

An eagle soars above a tranquil New Zealand lake reflecting rugged, green-carpeted mountains under a dramatic sky at sunset. The scene captures the serene and majestic essence of nature, with a stunning transparency as the eagle's reflection mirrors in the calm water below.

New Zealand still rated as global leader for public sector transparency, honesty and integrity

Transparency International has just released the 2021 Corruption Perception Index (CPI). New Zealand has retained its joint number one ranking along with Denmark, as having one of the least corrupt public sectors in the world. This year Finland joins the top-slot as third equal.

New Zealand’s score remains a “clean” 88/100, which is great news. However, the global average of 43/100 has also not moved. It has now been stagnant for ten years in a row. Two-thirds of the countries have scored below 50, indicting serious corruption problems. Of them, 27 have obtained their lowest scores ever. The figures reveal a worrying standstill in all regions of the world in the fight against public sector corruption. A summary of some of the issues raised in the CPI is below. The full report and supporting data can be found here.

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.
A person is highlighting text on a printed contract document with a yellow marker. The document, which discusses the UK Supreme Court's return to an orthodox liquidated damages approach, is placed on a wooden desk next to a keyboard and mouse. Various sections and terms have some text already highlighted.

UK Supreme Court returns to orthodox liquidated damages approach

The UK Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Triple Point Technology v PTT Public Company[1] has brought welcome clarity in relation to the drafting and interpretation of liquidated damages clauses[2] in construction, commercial and technology contracts. The judgment also deals with the relationship between liquidated damages clauses and caps on liability. We summarise the judgment and provide some key points for drafting liquidated damages clauses and related caps on liability.

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.