Retailers and Suppliers Still Too Quiet About Canada’s Grocery Code, New Report Reveals

When the Canadian government introduced the voluntary Grocery Code of Conduct a few years back, the hope was simple: build a more transparent, fair and collaborative relationship between supermarkets and the farmers, manufacturers and distributors that keep shelves stocked. In theory, everyone would have a clear playbook for how to handle disputes, share data and treat each other with respect.

But the reality, according to a new report released this week, looks a lot messier. The study, compiled by the Canadian Centre for Consumer Advocacy in partnership with a handful of industry watchdogs, interviewed over 150 retailers, supplier representatives and third‑party auditors. Their findings? A surprisingly large share of both sides are holding their tongues.

"People are nervous," says Marie‑Claire Dufour, one of the report’s lead researchers. "Even though the code is meant to be a safe space for raising issues, many still fear that speaking up could jeopardise contracts or even trigger legal action." That hesitation spans the whole supply chain – from a small family farm in Saskatchewan worried about price‑setting, to a national distributor hesitant to flag a data‑sharing breach.

The code itself is built on five core principles: transparency, fairness, respect, accountability and collaboration. It encourages parties to raise concerns through a formal ‘concern‑resolution’ process, promising that no retaliation would follow. Yet, the report uncovered three main reasons why that promise isn’t enough.

• Lack of clear enforcement mechanisms. The code is voluntary, meaning there’s no legal bite if a retailer decides to ignore a complaint.
• Power imbalances. Larger chains often hold the bargaining chips, leaving suppliers feeling they can’t afford to rock the boat.
• Insufficient awareness. Many respondents said they hadn’t even read the full code, let alone understood their rights under it.

One supplier from British Columbia, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted, "We’ve heard about the code, but when a dispute comes up we just go through the usual back‑and‑forth. We’re not sure if there’s a real, enforceable path to resolution." That sense of uncertainty is echoed by a mid‑size retailer in Ontario, who noted that internal policies often “default to keeping the peace,” even if it means swallowing a small grievance.

Beyond the fear factor, the report points to practical hurdles. For instance, many retailers still rely on legacy IT systems that can’t seamlessly share the data the code asks for. That makes the whole transparency promise feel more like a buzzword than a day‑to‑day reality.

So what’s the way forward? The authors make several concrete recommendations:

1. Introduce an independent oversight body. A third‑party entity could investigate complaints, ensuring that no one feels singled out by a powerful buyer.
2. Standardise training. Both retailers and suppliers should receive mandatory briefings on the code’s provisions, tailored to different roles – from store managers to farm owners.
3. Provide clear, enforceable penalties. Even a modest sanction for non‑compliance could shift the perception that the code is merely a suggestion.

Industry groups have responded with cautious optimism. The Canadian Grocers Association released a brief statement noting that “the report highlights valuable insights, and we’re committed to refining the code to better serve all stakeholders.” Meanwhile, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (CFIG) urged the government to consider turning the voluntary framework into a more robust, perhaps semi‑mandatory, set of guidelines.

For consumers, the ripple effect matters. When suppliers feel safe to flag issues – be it about product safety, pricing or sustainability – the benefits eventually land on the checkout lane. Transparency can lead to lower food waste, fairer prices and, ultimately, a healthier market.

Until those structural changes happen, though, the lingering sense of “better not to speak up” will likely stick around. As Dufour puts it, “A code on paper is only as good as the confidence people have in using it.”