The Competition Council of Latvia has released its annual anonymous survey of agricultural and food suppliers, revealing that deep-seated unfair trading practices continue to challenge the industry. The study evaluates supplier experiences with dominant buyers and assesses the long-term effectiveness of the Unfair Trading Practices Prohibition Act.
This year’s survey gathered insights from 27 respondents across major food sectors, including dairy, meat, bakery, and grain production. Although regional supplier representation within professional associations rose from 83% to 89%, overall awareness of vital legal protections experienced a visible decline. Only 74% of surveyed suppliers reported being well-informed about the protective act this year, dropping from 89% in the previous cycle. Similarly, the proportion of suppliers knowing exactly which regulatory institution to contact fell from 85% to 70%.
This erosion of familiarity mirrors a persistent lack of security among smaller market players. Roughly 37% of food suppliers stated they feel the current legislation does not protect them adequately against economically stronger buyers, marking a slight increase from last year’s 33%.
According to the data, the core friction points between suppliers and large buyers remain heavily entrenched. Suppliers identified lowest-price guarantees as the most frequent issue, accounting for 20% of grievances. Unilateral contract amendments, arbitrary refusals to accept goods with sufficient shelf life, and the illegal exploitation of trade secrets each comprised 19% of the reported problems, while unjustified financial sanctions made up 16%.
The retail sector remains the primary source of these systemic supply chain pressures, with 56% of respondents confirming unfair practices in their direct dealings with retail companies. Despite these widespread issues, formal reporting mechanisms remain largely underutilized. Only 4% of suppliers approached the Competition Council individually, while 26% chose to voice their grievances through their respective industry associations. Suppliers noted that a fear of retaliatory countermeasures and the ultimate threat of losing vital retail contracts entirely prevent them from seeking formal legal recourse.
On a positive note, 44% of respondents reported a decrease in sudden demands for unexpected discounts, hidden fees, or immediate payment requests regarding product damage. Moving forward, the Competition Council will utilize these insights to prioritize future market surveillance, strengthen association partnerships, and launch targeted educational drives to restore regulatory awareness.
