At a time when rising costs and price increases are putting pressure on consumers and testing relations between supermarkets and suppliers, the Greek market appears, at least according to its representatives, to favour cooperation over confrontation.
This is the picture painted by ECR Hellas president Thodoris Gerostergioudis, who contrasts domestic practice with what has happened in European markets, where major chains have at times withdrawn branded products from their shelves over disagreements about prices.
“I do not agree with these practices,” he says, arguing that “Greece is choosing cooperation at this point.”
This approach, however, does not remove the pressure on either side. “There is enormous pressure from costs and, of course, enormous pressure from the other side, from consumers, who are asking for ever better prices. And rightly so,” Mr Gerostergioudis says. As he explains, price increases can dampen demand or lead consumers to switch to cheaper options. “A price increase is not good news,” he says.
Negotiations become even more complex when they involve powerful brands, as withdrawing a popular product risks losing customers. On the other hand, avoiding such a clash does not necessarily mean that the agreements reached lead to lower prices for consumers.
Scope for cooperation — and its limits
In this environment, ECR Hellas is seeking to highlight areas where retailers and suppliers can work together, despite their differing commercial objectives.
As Mr Gerostergioudis explains, the non-profit organisation, whose members include businesses in retail, the consumer goods industry and services, focuses on improving the efficiency of the supply chain and reducing operating costs.
Cooperation, however, has clear limits. It does not cover prices, discounts or commercial terms. “These matters remain the subject of independent business decisions, within the framework of competition rules,” he says.
According to the ECR Hellas president, common ground lies in cutting costs that do not add value, such as inefficient transport, delivery delays and poor inventory management.
This distinction matters: businesses may agree on the need to reduce operating costs, but not necessarily on how the benefit is shared. Even if the cost of moving a product is reduced, the question of who captures the savings remains open: the producer, the retailer or the consumer.
In practice, ECR Hellas initiatives include the use of common technical standards in warehouses and transport, improvements to distribution processes and more effective inventory management.
The organisation has also considered the possibility of shared distribution hubs to supply the islands, where geographical dispersion, transport costs and seasonal demand create additional pressures.
Putting such solutions into practice on a larger scale would, however, require investment, business participation and coordination between different distribution networks. The use of artificial intelligence is also part of this effort, mainly to forecast demand and manage inventory.
More accurate sales forecasts could reduce both empty shelves and unsold products, particularly in perishable food categories. At the same time, through SmartGen FMCG, in cooperation with Athens University of Economics and Business, ECR Hellas aims to connect start-ups with industry and retail to develop technological solutions.
Benefits still to be demonstrated
The breadth of these initiatives, however, has not yet been matched by a corresponding quantitative assessment. Despite the studies and activities, there are no consolidated figures showing how much businesses’ operating costs have fallen or whether any of the savings have been passed on in retail prices.
Mr Gerostergioudis acknowledges the need for better evidence. “Although this does not fall within ECR Hellas’s remit, we will explore ways to quantify the benefits of the initiatives more fully,” he says.
The issue, however, is not limited to presenting the results. Potential savings are one thing; the actual economic benefit is another, and assessing it requires data on how the proposals are implemented, their cost and their returns.
Even if savings are made, there is no guarantee they will be passed on in final prices. Businesses may use them to absorb other cost pressures, fund investment or boost profitability.
Whether consumers benefit ultimately depends on competitive conditions and each business’s commercial decisions. So while cooperation between supermarkets and suppliers may create the conditions for a more efficient supply chain, its actual economic impact — and, above all, its effect on the prices households pay — remains to be substantiated.