Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Birds Eye Wall's referred to MMC over supply deals

Nigel Cope
Monday 22 December 1997 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Unilever's Birds Eye Wall's ice-cream business has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission over its supply deals with wholesalers. It is the second time in three years that the company has been accused of freezing out ice cream rivals. Nigel Cope, City Correspondent, reports

The decision to refer the issue to the MMC was taken by the Office of Fair Trading which said the existing structure of the distribution system restricts competition between wholesalers and between ice cream manufacturers.

Birds Eye's delivers its wrapped ice-creams to shops by a network of 32 exclusive operators, known as concessionaires. They undertake not to distribute other makes of ice-cream. The OFT said rival wholesalers, if supplied, received ice cream on less favourable terms. It said the existing structure would restrict choice and possibly lead to consumers paying higher prices.

John Bridgeman, Director-general of fair trading, said: "At the end of the day, it is consumers who lose out if Wall's distribution policy restricts the choice of ice creams in a shop, or makes it difficult for manufacturers to enter or expand in the market."

The MMC said the practices under investigation would include:

- the refusal to supply wrapped ice-cream to wholesalers who are not dedicated distributors, unless it is on less favourable terms;

- the granting of discounts to retailers who buy Wall's ice-cream from dedicated distributors but not to those who buy it from other suppliers.

Mr Bridgeman said: "Wall's concessionaires have an excellent reputation with retailers. But there are other wholesalers who would like to provide just as good a service." He said the current system operated by Wall's encouraged retailers to buy ice-cream from the Wall's dedicated wholesalers even if it meant they could not get other brands of ice-cream

The OFT said it would have liked Wall's to have agreed to give equal terms to concessionaires and independent wholesalers for doing the same business. However, it said that though Wall's had been willing to make some concessions they did not meet all the OFT's concerns.

Birds Eye Wall's said it welcomed the MMC decision but did not agree with the OFT that its system restricts consumer choice. It said it has been in discussions with the OFT since February 1996 over various aspects of its distribution systems and planned to introduce changes in 1998.

Tony Pearce, the company's sales director said: "We look forward to the new enquiry and are confident that these new proposals, which amount to a restructuring of our terms and discounts will put beyond doubt the fairness of the system."

The latest move by the OFT follows an MMC inquiry into freezer exclusivity in the ice- cream trade in 1994. That investigation centred on the practice of Mars, Wall's and others of giving freezers to retailers as long as the shop only uses them for that manufacturer's products. The MMC found that the practice was not against the public interest.

Unilever shares melted slightly on the news, closing down 3.25p to 486.75p.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in