DI and Metcash, the change is immediate. Contracts, negotiations and pricing discussions are no longer governed by convention alone, but by enforceable rules backed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which now sits firmly at the centre. From voluntary to mandatory At first glance, the shift reads as procedural, but in reality, it is quite the opposite. The priority comprises clear contracts, accountable pricing conversations and transparency, all within a defined, enforceable framework. In other words, the code sets out how supermarkets must operate, requiring written supply agreements and clear payment conditions alongside protections for suppliers who raise concerns. The ACCC describes it as a framework that “regulates the conduct of large grocery businesses towards their suppliers”. The code follows an extensive inquiry into supermarket practices that found entrenched power imbalances and information asymmetry across the supply chain. As the Australian Food and Grocery Council has noted, suppliers have “long raised concerns about the imbalance in bargaining power”. Namely, in fresh produce, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found “there is substantial information asymmetry between fresh produce suppliers and supermarket chains,” with many suppliers also fearing “retribution from raising concerns directly with the major supermarkets,” according to last year’s supermarkets inquiry. The ACCC’s recommendations went directly to these issues, proposing tighter rules around pricing changes, supply forecasts and contract clarity. What has now come into force is not simply a policy update, but the regulatory expression of those findings. The imbalance has historically surfaced in a series of high-profile cases that sit close to the surface of the sector. In December 2014 Woolworths Group introduced its “Mind the Gap” scheme, with buyers approaching suppliers for payments up to $1.4 million to help offset a profit shortfall, according to the ACCC. The commission launched proceedings in December 2015 alleging unconscionable conduct and the Federal Court dismissed the case in December 2016. Conversely, the outcome for Coles Group was more definitive, in December 2014, the Federal Court found the retailer had engaged in unconscionable conduct including seeking payments for “profit gaps” outside agreed terms, and ordered it to pay $10 million in penalties. In her judgment, Justice Gordon said: “Coles’ misconduct was serious, deliberate and repeated. Coles misused its bargaining power. Its conduct was ‘not done in good conscience’. It was contrary to conscience.” The next phase of scrutiny The industry response has been measured, but not without rigidity. Woolworths Group noted it is focused on “balancing supplier viability and customer affordability.”. Coles Group has similarly claimed that its “close relationships with suppliers” help it manage rising input costs. The code also introduces new compliance expectations that will require operational change, from how contracts are structured to how disputes are managed. The ACCC has also opened new reporting channels for suppliers, including anonymous submissions, stating on its website that “we are always interested to hear from suppliers about their experiences under the code.”  Fred Harrison, CEO of Ritchies IGA, pointed to the mounting pressure already moving through the system, saying that while prices have remained relatively stable in recent weeks, reviews are beginning to emerge. “There is a formula … the grocery code of conduct. Fuel levies come into play. Often, a supplier may ask us to apply a fuel levy to their product,” Harrison said on Sunrise. “We are seeing some suppliers, as Coles and Woollies have indicated as well, saying that they are perhaps building towards looking for a price review down the track.” Harrison warned that any increases may not be immediate, but are likely approaching, with potential rises landing within four to 13 weeks, particularly across fresh food categories. What it means for operators The code certainly changes the tone of negotiation and gives suppliers clearer rights, greater visibility and a more formal pathway to challenge decisions. It also raises the standard expected of retailers, not only in how they negotiate, but in how they document and justify those negotiations.  What also makes this moment significant is what it forecasts about the direction of the sector. As the Australian Food and Grocery Council has described it, this is “an important step towards a more transparent and fair grocery sector.” The move to a mandatory Code, backed by enforcement and expanding into pricing oversight, reflects a willingness to intervene in how grocery retail operates. It suggests that the conversation has moved beyond isolated concerns to systemic change.