But for better, or for worse?

In today’s typical supermarket environment, "choice, convenience and value for money" are values often of perceived importance to the customer.

Such values are commendable and highlight the importance of the customer in the consumer-retailer relationship. However, the practises undertaken in pursuit of these promises manifest big problems beneath the surface.
In particular, the draining effects on local economies, and environmental degradation. Such issues have consistently been thrust into the limelight, yet the need for the company to win the lowest price for the customer and reap the best returns for the shareholder has sparked this ethical trade-off.

The distribution paradox

Current supermarket practices are costing the local economy dear. In the height of the strawberry season, my local supermarket was selling raspberries from Yorkshire, located in excess of 350 miles away from Launceston. This ludicrous revelation flew the face of logic, as there were bushes of raspberries in the field behind the shop, not to mention the three local fruit farms within a four mile radius of the shop. Although this is merely one example, the apparent need for supermarkets to travel further to acquire produce found closer to home, is rife and comes with unnecessary CO2 emissions.

On a stroll around a local supermarket, I encountered shelves stacked with apples from Italy, potatoes from Poland, Green Beans from Kenya, yoghurt from Germany and so forth, as it is seemingly easier to buy a passion fruit in a British supermarket than it is to buy an English apple. No wonder British farming is now in the past tense.

The food system accounts for 40% of all UK road freight, whilst the combination of foods ending up on ones plate for a typical throw together meal could have travelled up to 58,000 miles to get there-two journeys around the world. In comparison, had I sourced the ingredients from local initiatives in neighbourhood, the food would have travelled a maximum of 20 miles.

No compromises

Revolutionising this ludicrous trend will be of tremendous benefit, not least to the local economy. After all, it has been calculated that for every £10 spent in a supermarket, generates only £14 for the local economy, in comparison to the £25 gained if the same amount was spent in a farmers market/shop.

The results of a survey are indicative of the need to change. A sample of 30 participants revealed that 80% would buy British over an imported equivalent, and 82% would prefer buying meat, vegetables and fruit grown from their region, as opposed to a remote country, far, far away. Most poignantly of all, 70% felt they are sceptical of the supermarkets and see them currently functioning as a leakage in the local economy, where all profits leave the region, and flow in the direction of expansion plans and shareholder dividends.

The Bottom Line

Ever heard the saying the customer is always right?
In most cases yes-but as you are the driving force behind the proliferating supermarket sector, your preferences cannot be overlooked. From having 20 % of the market share in 1950 to a 80% dominance in 1998, further concentration of the market is likely.

Ironically enough, the current level of consumer demand gives big incentive for the continuation of supermarket tactics with consumer apathy and ignorance contributing simultaneously. Such practices cost the local economy and the environment more than one might think at surface value.

Things cannot change over night, but evolution dictates that as the concentration of the market prevails and consumers become more enlightened, they will vote with their wallets. Effectively enough, as customer loyalty is invaluable, you as the consumer will have more power in this instance, than voters.

Buying local would therefore be the way forward. For the sake of your community, the harmonisation of the environment and ultimately the quality of what you buy, this will be a saving grace.