How supermarkets use frame game to deflect attention on profits

2026-03-25 - 16:03

Comment: Polling shows the cost of living is high on the list of New Zealanders’ concerns as we count down to the general election in November. Although rising fuel prices are dominating headlines, supermarket prices remain a common cause for complaint. There’s been a lot of debate about whether the lack of competition in our ‘cosy’ supermarket duopoly is enabling the big chains to keep prices high, worsening the cost-of-living crisis, and whether interventions are needed to drive prices down. The two major supermarket players – Woolworths and Foodstuffs (owners of the New World, Pak’nSave and Four Square brands) – have taken an active part in this debate. Like many organisations, they try to shape their commercial environment and the rules that govern it. In academic language, a company’s effort to advance its interests is known as corporate political activity. This isn’t just about lobbying politicians. Firms also try to frame how the public and policymakers think about issues. Framing isn’t quite lying. It’s about selecting one aspect of a situation and emphasising it, while avoiding the rest. By shifting the focus or point of view, a firm can redefine the problem, the cause, and the solution in a way that suits it. We’re probably all familiar with how supermarkets get us to buy things we otherwise might not –such as chocolate bars at the checkout or pricier items shelved at eyeline level. With framing, it’s not about selling products; it’s about maintaining the supermarkets’ large patch in the grocery industry. Think of it as quiet influence, manoeuvring that can fly under the radar. We’ve been examining the way supermarkets and other firms in the food industry use framing to try to influence the public and policymakers. We’ve found supermarkets use a range of subtle tactics to reframe issues and influence the views of their competitive domain. Presenting different information One of these tactics we call ‘factualising’, which shifts the frame by providing new or different information. By way of example, the Commerce Commission’s analysis of data from 2019 to 2023 found supermarkets’ retail prices had risen faster than supplier costs and that retail margins had also increased. These findings followed its 2022 market study that concluded Kiwis appeared to be paying high prices for groceries. In response to criticisms of the amount they charge consumers, supermarkets have presented their own metrics showing their retail prices increasing by less than inflation. They’ve also highlighted the fact New Zealand is geographically distant, which adds to the costs of transporting goods, and that we have extra tax (GST) on all groceries, unlike some other countries. This ‘factualising’ aims to steer the frame away from the large profits they typically make, despite these justifications. Deflecting attention Another way to reframe issues is by ‘deflecting’ – look at this; don’t look at that. We’ve seen this play out in supermarkets’ responses to criticisms from food suppliers that the stores are unfair and use their position as dominant buyers to extract lower prices and get additional services for free. For example, some suppliers have complained about being unfairly charged for advertising and for stocking shelves. To deflect the focus from suppliers’ complaints about unfair behaviour, the supermarkets point to their efforts to get fair deals for consumers. The stores claim these efforts aim to secure a fair and competitive grocery market by keeping food prices down. The Grocery Supply Code, introduced in 2023, is meant to stop supermarkets from charging suppliers unreasonable fees. But, as the Commerce Commission recently acknowledged, some suppliers remain hesitant about complaining about bad behaviour by the stores. Highlighting the ‘good’ A further tactic is ‘moralising’, which directs attention to the stores’ good deeds. In response to claims they make excessive profits, supermarkets shift the conversation to social values. They describe their local stores as active members of society, key parts of their communities, and benevolent guardians that provide employment, run sausage sizzles, and sponsor sports teams. You may argue this is all reasonable behaviour – that companies should be able to put their side of the story and highlight their positive activities. But corporate political activity matters because it can shape our lives. Framing is a subtle tool that can make corporate interests look like public interests. When successful, it can stop, modify, or delay changes in legislation or policy. Of course, these tactics are not only used by corporations. They’re also used by various social and political groups, including political parties. So, we should keep our eyes open to framing tactics and their potential impact. Ask yourself: what is being emphasised? What is being left out? Who stands to benefit? And who is holding the frame? In the next stage of our research, we’ll be taking a closer look at corporate political activity in the food industry, focusing on specific actions organisations take to influence public debate and policy outcomes.