Even Coca-Cola can lose its place on the shelf. Its clash with Aldi in Germany shows just how much the balance of power in the market has shifted. According to local media, the German chain was willing to forgo one of its most recognisable products rather than accept a 3.5% increase in the price of the 1.5-litre bottle.
This is, of course, not an isolated incident. Similar clashes have been recorded in recent years, mainly in France, between major supermarket chains and multinationals with powerful brands, such as Mondelez, Red Bull and Nutella.
The growing tension between industry and retail is highlighted in a joint intervention by FoodDrinkEurope, which represents Europe’s food and drink industry, and EFFAT, the European trade union federation representing workers in the food, agriculture and tourism sectors. The two organisations warn that, despite the adoption of the EU’s 2019 directive on unfair trading practices (including late payments), “structural problems remain unresolved”, foremost among them the growing concentration of the retail sector and the strengthening of retailers’ bargaining power. They are therefore calling on the European Commission to review the existing framework to curb abusive practices against suppliers.
Figures cited in their letter show that, in most EU countries, the four largest chains control more than 50% of the market, while in some countries their share is close to 90%. Greece is no exception. ICAP CRIF data show that the five largest groups control 71% of the supermarket and Cash & Carry market.
According to FoodDrinkEurope and EFFAT, this imbalance is being reinforced by the growth of European buying alliances, through which large chains pool their bargaining power. These alliances’ share of food sales in the EU nearly doubled over nine years, from 31% in 2015 to 59% in 2024. FoodDrinkEurope and EFFAT accuse some of exploiting regulatory loopholes by setting up headquarters outside the EU, for example in Switzerland, to avoid European rules.
At the same time, 65.2% of respondents to the European Commission’s 2026 public consultation said they had observed illegal trading practices, but only 5.7% had filed a complaint. The organisations say the reason is “fear of retaliation”, as suppliers risk losing orders or their place on the shelves.
What suppliers want from Brussels
They are therefore calling for the removal of the €350 million turnover threshold that limits the protection offered by the EU directive, arguing that even large producers may depend on a small number of powerful buyers. The aim is to extend protection to all suppliers, regardless of size.
The second proposal is to expand the “blacklist” of banned trading practices. FoodDrinkEurope and EFFAT want to ban the sudden termination of business relationships, the unjustified delisting of products and large cuts to orders at the last minute. Also in their sights are pressures on suppliers to make successive price cuts, demands that they pay for unrelated promotional activities, and preferential treatment for private-label products. They also want stronger protection for producers’ trade secrets and intellectual property against abusive use by retailers.
The third proposal concerns enforcement of the rules. The two organisations are calling for more inspections, stricter oversight and effective sanctions, with the relevant authorities able to investigate breaches even without a complaint. They also want closer cooperation between national authorities so that chains and buying alliances operating in multiple countries can be monitored more effectively.
According to the two organisations, higher costs and pressure from large retailers limit profit margins and investment and hamper the ability to create and sustain jobs. They therefore see the revision of the directive as a matter of competitiveness for European production as well.
While European suppliers — the producers — are seeking protection from large chains, the chains themselves argue that their bargaining power is constrained by the practices of major suppliers.
At the same time, competition authorities in six European countries, including Greece, are calling on the European Commission for binding rules to tackle so-called Territorial Supply Constraints (TSCs), or territorial restrictions on supply. A 2020 European Commission study cited by the six authorities estimated that eliminating territorial supply constraints could reduce retailers’ purchase prices by an average of 8.8% and consumer prices by 7.6%. The potential benefit for European consumers was estimated at €14.1 billion. This is, however, an estimate of potential benefits, not savings that would automatically result from removing the restrictions.