Coles denies allegations that it excludes fresh produce suppliers who challenge its pricing, as a public inquiry into competition in the sector concludes.
The inquiry highlighted the practice of sending dissenting suppliers on a “supplier holiday” during its final day of public hearings on Nov. 22.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) revealed that some supermarket suppliers were being offered prices below the cost of production by major chains, forcing them to accept unfavorable terms due to the market dominance of the grocers.
When asked about the use of a “supplier holiday” tactic, Coles’ chief commercial officer Anna Croft stated that it was not a term she was familiar with.
During questioning by counsel assisting Naomi Sharp SC, Croft declined to comment on whether Coles had contractual obligations to purchase a specific volume of fresh produce from suppliers.
Executives from Coles defended their accreditation processes in response to complaints about high costs, emphasizing the importance of sustainability, quality, and ethical sourcing.
Property manager Fiona Mackenzie disclosed that Coles owned 42 freehold sites across the country, with 17 sites awaiting development applications.
Coles executives refuted claims of land banking, asserting that they identify market gaps, acquire sites, and plan developments over several years.
The ACCC is yet to form a view on concerns raised about land banking, with industry players like IGA supplier Metcash and NSW Farmers expressing apprehension about the practice.
Sharp also questioned Coles executives about their loyalty programs, suggesting they might deter customers from shopping elsewhere.
The watchdog’s final report is expected to be submitted to Treasurer Jim Chalmers by Feb. 28 as the government aims to address rising prices and inflation in major supermarkets.
