The latest update from the Groceries Code Adjudicator carries a clear message for the grocery trade: compliance may still be high, but suppliers are again pointing to familiar pressure points. According to the GCA, the 2026 annual supplier survey, published on 16 April, showed a small rise in the share of suppliers reporting Groceries Code issues. That matters because this is not only a regulatory story. It is also a business story about bargaining power, forecasting discipline, payment culture and how large supermarket systems affect the firms behind the shelf edge. For producers, manufacturers and growers, even small failures in process can turn quickly into cashflow strain and commercial uncertainty.

The GCA said overall compliance with the Groceries Code remained high, which is the reassuring part of the picture. Even so, the survey highlighted a drift in the wrong direction on several recurring issues. Suppliers most often pointed to invoice discrepancy resolution, forecasting accuracy, de-listing and delays in payment. In Market Pulse UK terms, that is the part worth watching. High-level compliance can sit alongside day-to-day friction that still leaves suppliers carrying the risk. The Adjudicator's language was firmer than the usual newsletter tone, describing the findings as a warning to every retailer that suppliers must be treated fairly and lawfully, and that changes should be made where needed.

The practical effect of those complaints is easy to recognise. Invoice discrepancy resolution may sound procedural, but for a supplier it can mean time spent chasing money that should already be in the business. Forecasting errors can leave a food producer with the wrong stock profile, wasted output or an unexpected production gap. De-listing decisions can unsettle volumes quickly, while payment delays hit working capital at exactly the point many suppliers need certainty. This is why supermarket conduct matters beyond compliance language. If suppliers are left to absorb the cost of weak forecasting or slow payment, the strain does not stay in the back office. It can feed into pricing, investment decisions and the willingness of smaller firms to back innovation or expansion.

The survey also showed that 60% of suppliers would be willing to raise an issue with the GCA. That is a useful sign of trust, but it still leaves a sizeable group who may prefer to stay quiet. The Adjudicator acknowledged that more needs to be done to reassure suppliers who remain concerned about coming forward. The GCA says suppliers can report Code issues confidentially by email or through its anonymous Tell the GCA platform. It also points suppliers to designated retailers' Code Compliance Officers, whose contact details are published on the regulator's website. The promise from both the regulator and retailers is that confidentiality will be protected and that suppliers should not face retribution for raising concerns. In practice, that confidence point is crucial. A reporting system only works if suppliers believe it is safe to use.

Alongside the survey, the government published the fourth statutory review of the GCA in April, covering the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025. The review found the regulator effective, which gives the Adjudicator a solid public endorsement at a time when supplier confidence still needs work. The response from the GCA is to push harder on three areas: stronger stakeholder confidence, clearer transparency around how the office operates and a sharper focus on fears of retaliation. That is a sensible priority. A regulator can only judge market conduct properly if businesses at the weaker end of the supply chain are prepared to speak with some confidence that they will not be punished commercially for doing so.

There is also an institutional change ahead. From 1 July 2026, departmental sponsorship of the GCA will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The GCA stresses that it will remain independent, with enforcement decisions continuing to be made separately from government. On paper, that is an administrative shift rather than a change in the rules. Still, it lands in a sector where food policy, farming economics and retail conduct increasingly overlap. The bigger test for suppliers will be more straightforward than any Whitehall reshuffle: whether the next set of results shows fewer complaints on payment, forecasting and de-listing, rather than another year in which formal compliance looks sound but operational frustrations continue underneath it.