本文主要讲述的是食品和食品杂货店的行为准则，特易购(Tesco)和科尔(Cole)等零售商的议价能力高于供应商。这意味着，当涉及到降低成本以满足客户，并确保他们满足他们的利润率，他们可以与供应商谈判，以获得有竞争力的价格对他们的产品。较高的议价能力存在，因为这样的零售商有广泛的供应商选择(Porter et al.， 1996)。同样，诚信的零售商可以努力确保他们的供应商遵循可持续的标准，不让他们的员工加班，等等。本篇澳洲传播学论文代写文章由澳洲论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Retailers such as Tesco and Cole have a bargaining power that is higher than that of the suppliers. This means when it comes to cost reduction to satisfy the customer and to ensure that they meet their profit margins, they could negotiate with suppliers to get competitive pricing on their products. The higher bargaining power exists because such retailers have a wide range of suppliers to choose from (Porter et al., 1996). Similarly, retailers in good faith could work on ensuring their suppliers to follow sustainable standards, don’t make their employees work overtime, etc.
They could also work on training their suppliers if needed. These are some ways that the retailers and wholesalers can act lawfully and in good faith towards their suppliers to maintain their competitive presence. However, as the case study shows, some retailers like Tesco and Cole for instance are seen to use their bargaining power to intimidate and even take advantage of their suppliers. This is not acting in god faith as per the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct.
For instance, consider the case of Cole where the then ruling Federal Court Judge, found that Cold has misused its bargaining power. Cole had involved itself in negotiations with suppliers that were downright deliberate and serious. Cole had made some changes to its supply chain and demanded payment from suppliers stating that they would benefit from them, when in fact it was of direct benefit to Cole more than them. This was not acting in good faith, because Cole was browbeating its suppliers and using its bargaining power to extort money from them. Cole called this scheme as an active retail collaboration scheme.
Suppliers had to make payments under this scheme (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ACCC, 2014). Suppliers were not given the choice to refuse to accept the scheme. Where the suppliers were not signing up for the scheme and making the required payment, then their supplies would risk getting downgraded, or their products might not be promoted in the supermarket, etc. Acting in good faith means agreements must be enforced reasonably and must have some relevant purpose. The enforcers of agreements, such as both retailers and suppliers must not act in arbitrary ways. In the case of Cole, there was breach of good faith. In a similar way, consider how Tesco denied payments to suppliers. Tesco denied payments for its personal benefit of ensuring that its monetary returns were presented properly or for the reasons of showing profit. Suppliers had to take the fall here, sometimes debt owed to supplier was not returned at least for around 24 months even.