Suppliers pay the price as retail giants battle it out to offer ‘best value’

YOUR editorial in praise of the retail trade (June 27) is quite astonishing in its naïve assumption

(a) that generosity is one of its attributes, or

(b) that any proposed programme of price reduction will diminish its profits.

In the unlikely event that it does, it will merely be overdue restitution for ill-gotten gains.

The growth of the wealth, self-promotion and pervasive influence of that sector of corporate commerce during the past half century or so is truly awesome.

Its progress has been remarkable for its success, by ruthless exploitation of all those who supply the goods which it sells.

The dramatic reduction of the number of retail sales outlets, following the disappearance of “local” shops, enabled the fewer, bigger purchasers to demand more and more in prices, extended credit, delivery frequency and other services from suppliers – and they do so all the time.

It is common that “promotions” and “special offers” are funded by lower prices to suppliers regardless of how tight margins happen to be.

Suppliers are given no choice; they are routinely confronted with demands for “sweeteners” of various kinds to ensure they are not delisted.

And all the while the reputation for “good value” and “fair pricing” of the retailers is enhanced.

Having long retired from business in the field in question, and now immune to retaliation, I am at last free of risk in publishing information about these shameful practices.

My purpose in writing is to correct misinformation which may arise from your naïve approval of a mythical public-spirited generosity, mistakenly perceived by your researchers to exist within the corporate commercial retail community (It just proves how well they persuade others how “caring” they are).

I have also read ‘Farm View’ by Stephen Cadogan (Irish Examiner Farming, June 25) ... an utter contradiction of your editorial, an impressive confirmation of the above, pragmatic, realistic and most welcome.

All the foregoing confirms the view

(a) that dependence on “market forces” alone is unable to ensure justice for consumers or producers of goods;

(b) that some element of effective legal control/regulation is necessary in all retailer trading, and

(c) that the matter requires urgent Government attention.

Liam Cashman

Glanmire

Co Cork