Coles and Woolworths, the supermarket chains that together control almost two-thirds of the Australian grocery market, are facing unprecedented scrutiny.
One recent inquiry, commissioned by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and led by former Australian Consumer and Competition Commission chair Allan Fels, found the pair engaged in unfair pricing practices; an ongoing Senate inquiry into food prices is looking at how these practices are linked to inflation; and the ACCC has just begun a government-directed inquiry into potentially anti-competitive behaviour in Australia’s supermarkets.
Earlier this week, the two companies also came under the gaze of the ABC current affairs program Four Corners. Their respective chief executives each gave somewhat prickly interviews, and Woolworths chief Brad Banducci announced his retirement two days after the program aired.
A focus on the power of the supermarket duopoly is long overdue. However, one aspect of how Coles and Woolworths exercise their power has received relatively little attention: a growing high-tech infrastructure of surveillance and control that pervades retail stores, warehouses, delivery systems and beyond.
Every customer a potential thief
As the largest private-sector employers and providers of essential household goods, the supermarkets play an outsized role in public life. Indeed, they are such familiar places that technological developments there may fly under the radar of public attention.
Coles and Woolworths are both implementing technologies that treat the supermarket as a “problem space” in which workers are controlled, customers are tracked and profits boosted.
For example, in response to a purported spike in shoplifting, a raft of customer surveillance measures have been introduced that treat every customer as a potential thief. This includes ceiling cameras which assign a digital ID to individuals and track them through the store, and “smart” exit gates that remain closed until a purchase is made. Some customers have reported being “trapped” by the gate despite paying for their items, causing significant embarrassment.
At least one Woolworths store has installed 500 mini cameras on product shelves. The cameras monitor real-time stock levels, and Woolworths says customers captured in photos will be silhouetted for privacy.
A Woolworths spokesperson explained the shelf cameras were part of “a number of initiatives, both covert and overt, to minimise instances of retail crime”. It is unclear whether the cameras are for inventory management, surveillance, or both.
Workers themselves are being fitted with body-worn cameras and wearable alarms. Such measures may protect against customer aggression, which is a serious problem facing workers. Biometric data collected this way could also be used to discipline staff in what scholars Karen Levy and Solon Barocas refer to as “refractive surveillance” – a process whereby surveillance measures intended for one group can also impact another.
Predicting crime
At the same time as the supermarkets ramp up the amount of data they collect on staff and shoppers, they are also investing in data-driven “crime intelligence” software. Both supermarkets have partnered with New Zealand start-up Auror, which shares a name with the magic police from the Harry Potter books and claims it can predict crime before it happens.
Coles also recently began a partnership with Palantir, a global data-driven surveillance company that takes its name from magical crystal balls in The Lord of the Rings.
These heavy-handed measures seek to make self-service checkouts more secure without increasing staff numbers. This leads to something of a vicious cycle, as under-staffing, self-checkouts, and high prices are often causes of customer aggression to begin with.
Many staff are similarly frustrated by historical wage theft by the supermarkets that totals hundreds of millions of dollars.
From community employment to gig work
Both supermarkets have brought the gig economy squarely inside the traditional workplace. Uber and Doordash drivers are now part of the infrastructure of home delivery, in an attempt to push last-mile delivery costs onto gig workers.
The precarious working conditions of the gig economy are well known. Customers may not be aware, however, that Coles recently increased Uber Eats and Doordash prices by at least 10%, and will no longer match in-store promotions. Drivers have been instructed to dispose of the shopping receipt and should no longer place it in the customer’s bag at drop-off.
In addition to higher prices, customers also pay service and delivery fees for the convenience of on-demand delivery. Despite the price increases to customers, drivers I have interviewed in my ongoing research report they are earning less and less through the apps, often well below Australia’s minimum wage.
Viewed as a whole, Coles’ and Woolworths’ high-tech measures paint a picture of surveillance and control that exerts pressures on both customers and workers. While issues of market competition, price gouging, and power asymmetries with suppliers must be scrutinised, issues of worker and customer surveillance are the other side of the same coin – and they too must be reckoned with.
Lauren Kate Kelly, PhD Candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, RMIT University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
61 Comments
Eer no. This is capitalism working as it shouldn't.
We need for example a free market. But such would crush that duopoly, and their basic business model is to crush the idea of having competition in anyway they can. They much prefer the socialist 'command economy' (if operated by them)
Note1. "free market" is of course an oxymoron. If we had one, very competitive, the participants would fight to reduce the competitiveness. We need competition, but it can only be maintained by a referee with a big stick. A referee not a player.
Note 2. Staff of governments, local and central both, operate as monopolies. Much like the supermarkets they pay much attention to controlling their environment. Try threatening their position and it gets laser focus.
I was being sarcastic.... but you are right about the anti competitive behaviour.
I was more referring the fact that people are seen as "units" to be dealt with/manipulated and that, when the bottom line is affected, anything goes in order to preserve it even if that encroaches on privacy/freedoms
Sounds like grounds for a civil case?
Imagine walking into a supermarket for the 1 ingredient you need, seeing the shelf space empty (or just plain giving up because they've shifted the aisles around again) then being detained as you try and leave without buying anything? Screw that!
What practicable choice do customers have?
If there were reasonable competition in the food supply chain, delivering food producers sustainable income for their produce at farm gate, then I argue that there would be greater consumer choice in where to purchase.
The consolidation of market power consumers experience at the store, is only the above water part of the supply chain iceberg. Below the waterline is the consolidated power being exerted on goods and service providers, right back down the chain to the paddock. Evidenced by reduction in numbers (and expanding size/acreage of the farms growing the produce. Example Ohakune/Raetihi where 20 or so years ago there were some 120 vegetable growers and now 5 or 6. Driven by supermarkets dictating that they will only source product from 1 or 2 suppliers in a given locality. Same in apples.
It's not as simple as that. And 120 growers can always form a co-op (done fairly commonly).
I know dairy farmers who are quitting, because their parents or grandparents managed to get by with a herd under 100, whereas now you need hundreds to make them work, compounded by the fact their kids aren't interested in taking the farm over.
Even in the agriculture I do, what used to be done mostly via hand now requires significant capital expense on machinery to generate enough volume at the sorts of costs the market will pay. You can't do it at a cottage-industry based level anymore and expect it to sustain you - unless the consumer was prepared to pay 3-4x more, which is the opposite of what people are calling for.
I think New Zealand's small size and distance to market means we can't leverage economies of scale for much production, and the dominance of a few cosy relationships in the supply chain means poor returns for producers.
It's broken, but how do we fix it? Breaking up the supermarket chains might be a start, but it might be that incompetence is a bigger factor than malign intent. Many years in the supply chain taught me that screwing over your suppliers was the sign of companies in trouble, usually of their own making.
There's a subtle difference between screwing over your suppliers and screwing them down.
Supermaket strategy to enter into supply contracts with only 2 or 3 suppliers of product has lead to down chain market power consolidation in the post harvest sector. What that means us that if you grow apples, you must secure a contract with a post harvest operator to be able to access markets.
Following the dismantling of the NZ Apple and Pear Marketing Act, there has been rapid decline in the number of orchard businesses. What we see now is post harvest operators with integrated orchard production, grading/packing, coolstore and marketing. Arguably, because the post harvest operators (historically post harvest was an adjunct to their orchard holdings) control market access, they have been able to leverage that power position to make it non-viable for other independent orchardists to supply, leading to buy out or lease of those orchards by the post harvest operator.
To do your own check - look at apples in the supermarket, identify the number of different lables, then research who owns those lables.
I come from a different background - tech manufacturing. Some years ago a huge player in he field, acquiring companies like there was no tomorrow, unilaterally decreed that payment terms for their local suppliers would change from 30 days to 90 days if they wanted to do business. And in their case there really was no tomorrow as they were defunct in 2016.
I'd argue that screwing down or over are the same thing as it involves an abuse of power and makes everything transactional, rather than relational. That business model is rife here and it's one of the reasons things cost so much, take so long and are always to the lowest possible standard.
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting cottage style farming and I recognise the scale elements you describe. Who/what is driving production land aggregation? The first place to look for an answer is the supermaket duopoly.
Looking at domestic market focused production (as against export focused sectors, where essentially supply to the domestic market is export market surplus) the supermaket chains have shaped the supply chain to their preference, which has seen the demise of fruit and veg auction houses that used to exist in larger population centres. Farmers shipped product to those markets (i used to ship to Wellington, or Auckland, or New Plymouth, or etc, etc, depending on my reading of the tea leaves as to where I might get best price.) Independent retailers (and local supermarkets) would buy from those auctions. Even Morning Report featured Jack Forsyth (if my memory serves me) to report on the fruit and vege auctions. Demise of the auctions cleared the wicket for supermarkets to do what the heck they wanted. And now we have whatever have...
You're so right - the end of a transparent auction system for produce gave a clear path to supermarket domination. Was it driven by the supermarkets only wanting direct supply contracts and producers going with that because they feared being left out completely if they didn't?
From reading the reports, the producers of processed foods also take something of a hiding and the system of incentives and payments to supermarkets really does need the light of inquiry upon it as well.
And I remember the produce reports on National Radio - usually delivered at a hell of a pace to fit in to the two minutes before the news.
Oz currently has 6 inquiries ongoing into their supermarket practices...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-24/supermarket-inquiries-super-size…
But, the Government has already ruled out breaking up their duopoly
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-24/government-picking-fights-compet…
So, same same - as NZ
A "free market" usually tends towards a smaller number of larger players. Supermarkets require a decent amount of capital, and larger entities are more efficient.
It's why mom and pop retailers the world over are dieing on the vine.
Our foods expensive because we make producing anything fairly costly in this country. At least if we were in Europe we could use African slave labour to keep costs at the till lower.
"larger entities are more efficient" Not really. Take the special treatment they demand out of wholesalers, importing products produced in human and environmental sacrifice zones and incredible wastage going to land fill ie externalising the negatives of their appalling business model and you have stupidity, not efficiency!
Suppliers will sell to whoever's putting up decent cash.
Blocking land acquisition is definitely no bueno.
Reality is supermarkets are high volume, low margin. More players isn't going to make food prices significantly lower. A single percentage point, at an absolutely best case scenario.
Except for the fortnightly big shop (10km away), my local independent dairy is cheaper once you consider the cost and time involved in driving elsewhere. Also, I supply my local fruit/vege shop with fresh produce - I can do so at a far lower cost and with less waste than the big players and if they wish so they can reflect that in their prices.
Kiwiharvest: 200 tonnes a month of salvaged food - and growing - from 3,2 billion dollars of food waste.
The amount of waste in our food supply chain is mind boggling: bread, that perishable staple, sends 15,000 tonnes annually to landfill.
Not here, I keep all my bread in the freezer as I pretty much only use it for toast. 0% waste, sometimes I toast the crusts but more often than not the birds get those so none goes to waste. Also only eat frozen veg so again zero waste. Bananas are probably the worst, never seem to get through the lot. Switched to the likes of Charlies orange juice, flagged the fruit again too much waste.
Our food is expensive at the supermarket shelf because of profit extraction by the supermarkets, not because the farm gate cost of production is high. The supermarket duopoly revalidates the supply chain adage with farmer the first link - farmer....buys retail, sells wholesale and pays the cartage both ways. The only exceptions to that in NZ are the farmer owned cooperatives, Fonterra and Zespri. But for each of those their real competition is in the global market, not domestically in NZ. And when one considers the fact that individual supermarket chains in the UK, Europe and North America, have annual turnover about equivalent to or greater than NZ annual GDP, that's a compelling reason to retain those cooperatives, for the betterment of NZ export income generation.
Our food is expensive at the supermarket shelf because of profit extraction by the supermarkets
Supermarket profits are around 5%.
Our foods expensive because we have high wages, GST, inefficient transport networks, rolling adverse weather issues, a small market, and relatively high cost regulatory environment.
The only places I visit around the world and see significantly lower food costs either have much lower wages and more favourable climates. Usually both. But not a huge amount of supermarket competition.
How do you derive zero waste though?
Older fruit and veggies can be frozen, or preserved, but then those billions of dollars of waste are spread throughout hundreds of outlets, across the country, that'd need to be shipped and processed somewhere (assuming even more doesn't spoil en route).
It's a very tricky thing to have your stock levels exactly meet your customer demand.
You're right: matching demand and supply is beyond tricky - but a substantial part of that waste is discarded at production for essentially cosmetic reasons.
Have a look at Kiwiharvest's site as they are working on food rescue from things like retail sources.
Hey pa1nter, you from Hastings by any chance?
Margins are much, much higher than 5% in the fresh fruit and veg categories.
When it comes to durable goods, then our 'big' supermarkets come up against the massive multi-nationals, like Warren Buffet with Watties, Nestlé, etc, etc.
It's in the fresh, perishable categories that the duopoly has the greatest power.
The nature of storing, displaying, and spoilage of fresh produce mandates higher margins for it. Their overall margin is 5%, some items 2%, some items 20-30%. Some under cost.
Almost everywhere has greengrocers if people think they're a savings (usually only if they're selling local in-season).
One other problem has become the proliferation of growing in some areas. Most regions in NZ now specialise in a small handful of crops, dictated by their climate, water access etc, scale of supporting industry, etc. So whereas 30 years ago you had a wide variety of local produce, much is now grown somewhere else, transported, centrally distributed, etc - all more cost.
Other you are so wrong it is established under the Kiwifruit industry restructuring Act 1999 and the Kiwifruit export regulations.
It is a legislated producer board. Only Kiwifruit orchardists are shareholders. Pretty much the same as Fonterra but Fonterra established the Fonterra Shareholders Fund to allow non-farmers to access dividends without voting rights.
Well I nearly came on and said you were so wrong. But I thought I better check first.
I'd have to say Im now not sure what Zespri is, it appears neither a co-op nor a public company. Yes growers own shares, but they don't have too and you don't have to be a grower to own shares, nor are voting rights strictly attached to shares.
Interesting.
Disagree absolutely with Pa1nter's comment.
"....and larger entities are more efficient...."
It's true they make more money - but that's because they have control. The business advantage is control not efficiency.
Look at any share market commentary. Stocks will be highly recommended because they have control. No analysis of their efficiency.
Small can be very productive. Good for users.
We could have great results by limiting each "group" to max 50 outlets. (NW currently about 25)
I have just started shopping at the warehouse. Initially it was just the $6 Weetbix so I couldn't be bothered going in just for that but now if you do some searching its worth making a separate trip. If more people shopped there for at least a few items it may improve the whole market.
Odd that isn't it? How the errors are always on the up side? My wife is very sharp with the figures and can memorise the tagged prices. She never leaves the supermarket without first checking the docket and there is virtually always a mistake. Most people never check. Pure profit.
I had a case at New World, Waipukurau, where apples were wrongly priced. The error was corrected. But when I asked that the change the computer price accordingly, was told that such had to wait on availability of a techy. How many non-observant customers (before and after me) got fleeced of the extra $0.50/kg or whatever before that error was corrected?
I have had that conversation so many times. They don't thank you for pointing out the error and do nothing to correct it for the next sucker. I find Pak n Save much more accurate - I've always wondered if the duopoly has worked out they can get away with in more in the "high end" supermarket/client base.
Was at service station the other day and paid for $139.34 of petrol. Back out at the pumps I'm thinking I'm sure it was $138.34. sure enough the pump says $138.34.
Back inside, lots of tooing and frooing and yes pump does say $1 less. Really unusual for me to notice.
Got home and thought to check the calculation. Turns out the pump was wrong and the computer inside was actually correct. I'm not sure how the pump can calculate it wrong but it did.
I scored $1 of the big bad company.
Can't wait for them to throw an absolute fit when someone puts stickers over all of their aisle cameras. This level of surveillance needs to stop. Especially in places where people have to go in order to get basis like food. The excuse of using it to know when stocks are low is complete BS and they know it, they just know the public has no other real choice.
The slide to totalitarianism is always a worry.
https://medium.com/@malcolmw12/1984-by-george-orwell-part-three-summary…
What liability will the supermarkets have for when (not if) the biometric information they are collecting gets hacked?
While I can change a password; changing my face is rather less convenient - and does anyone find credible the claims about protecting customer privacy with measures like 'silhouetting'?
It's private data. Generally all encrypted so hacking it is not just file access, and requires you to be operating "on the inside". Its not just coming, its here now and has been for a while. Supermarkets will respond with shop somewhere else.
The real issue is the universal spread. People tagged will be exposed worse than having a bad credit rating and will struggle to shop anywhere.
To some extent they will have done it to themselves.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.