Tiger and Price Collusion

Dear Fazila

Forgive me for following one letter with another, but your expose about Tiger Foods Brands and Pioneer Foods colluding on price reminded me of the persistent rumour about Unite for Hunger.

The conviction of these food giants for price collusion asks hard questions of its corporate governance, but also its social responsibility. For some time, the non-profit community has been speculating that Tiger Brand's s.21 vehicle, Unite for Hunger, gets donors to buy its food parcels from Tiger and at retail prices. Using donors to boost its sales would be an abuse of position, but the real impact is on food prices and security. High food prices cause malnutrition, so this is no small matter. If channelling food aid to the very poor allows Tiger to raise its prices for the rest, this would increase and not solve food insecurity. How much is Tiger's free food programme underpinning its price collusion with Pioneer Foods?

Now that the question has been asked, no doubt Unite for Hunger will answer. Tiger Brands makes much of its CSI. If true, some changes are in order. If untrue, it should welcome putting this long-standing rumour to rest and taking its place amongst our best.

The real issue though is about our institutions. The market place has a Competition Commission to investigate monopolistic behaviour and defend the consumer. It's rulings go far to change behaviour when needed but also protect to the reputation of business. Who is the body in our sector that tests for charity scams and protects the donor and community? Who also can defend good NGO's when rumours circulate about them? This is a chance for SANGOCO or the NDA to be alive to the needs of our sector.

Errol Goetsch
errol@xe4.org