Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Antitrust in the Groceries Sector & Liability Issues in Relation to Corporate Social Responsibility pp 309–333Cite as

Sweden

  • Chapter

  • 570 Accesses

Abstract

The retail grocery sector in Sweden can be categorised as an oligopoly comprising of four major retail chains. The four major players ICA, COOP, Axfood and Bergendahls dominate the market, and ICA is the strongest incumbent retailer and has increased its market share over the last 15 years. The three biggest retail chains have increased their joint market share from 60 to 80 % between 1997 and 2007. A recent study conducted in Sweden shows that the margins or prices are no different at any level of the distribution chain in comparison to other countries in Europe on average.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket, KKV), report Mat och marknad – från bonde till bord, Rapport 2011:3, April 2011.

  2. 2.

    SFS 2008:579.

  3. 3.

    SFS 2008:486.

  4. 4.

    Amongst the most relevant legislative measure could be mentioned the Distance and Doorstep Sales Act (SFS 2005:59), The Consumer Contract Terms Act SFS (1994:1512), The E-sales Act (SFS 2002:562), the Consumers’ Credit Act (SFS 2010:1846), The Consumers’ Sales Act (SFS 1990:932), The Consumers’ Services Act (SFS 1985:716), The Act on dangerous imitations of products that look like foodstuffs (SFS 1992:1328), The Price Indication Act (SFS 2004:347) and the Product Safety Act (SFS 2004:451).

  5. 5.

    Government Ordinance (SFS 1993:80) on exemption according to Section 17 of the Competition Act (SFS 1993:20) for retail chains.

  6. 6.

    The current 2008 Competition Act that replaced the 1993 Act significantly updated the procedural aspects and remedies available. However, the rules related to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance have remained the same over the years.

  7. 7.

    See Wahl, N., Rättsutlåtande rörande gruppundantagen för kedjor i detaljhandeln, Konkurrensverkets rapportserie 1997:1, Wahl, N., Application of Competition Rules in Sweden – The Swedish Competition Act and National Application of Community Competition Rules, ERT 1999, p. 16. See also Wahl, N., Gruppundantaget för kedjor i detaljhandeln in Märkbara småföretag och konkurrens, 2000, p. 101 and Bernitz, U., Konkurrensrätten på dagligvarumarknaden, ERT 2004, p. 239.

  8. 8.

    Regulation 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21.

  9. 9.

    Regulation 1217/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements, OJ 2010 L 335, p. 36 and Commission Regulation 1218/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements, OJ 2010 L 335, p. 43.

  10. 10.

    SFS 1989:978.

  11. 11.

    Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2009:3, Ransonering och prisreglering i krig och fred – delbetänkande av utredningen om översyn av ransoneringslagen och prisregleringslagen and SOU 2009:69, En ny ransonerings- och prisregleringslag – slutbetänkande av utredningen om översyn av ransoneringslagen och prisrelgeringslagen.

  12. 12.

    The main findings of the inquiry were published in the KKV report Mat och marknad – från bonde till bord, Rapport 2011:3. There were several underlying reports to the KKV findings; K. Olofdotter, J. Gullstrand, K. Karantininis, Konkurrens och makt i den svenska livsmedelskedjan, Agrifood Economics Centre, 2011; B. Berg-Andersson, O. Rantala, Konkurrenstryckets och konkurrenskraftens inverkan på livsmedelskedjans prisbildning – Sverige i internationell jämförelse, Näringslivets Forskningsinstitut Finland, 2011; J. Nilsson, De lantbrukskooperativa företagens betydelse för konkurrensen inom livsmedelskedjan, Agrifood Economics Centre, 2011; C. Jörgensen, Lokalisering och konkurrens i dagligvaruhandeln, Agrifood Economics Centre, 2011, Persson, M., Pristransmission inom den svenska livsmedelskedjan, Agrifood Economics Centre, 2011.

  13. 13.

    See ECJ, case C-189/95, Criminal proceedings against Harry Franzén, ECR 1997, I-5909. The dispute arose out of criminal proceedings against a local grocery owner who attempted to sell wine in his shop. Although his action was illegal in Sweden, he invoked that the legislation was contrary to Articles 30 and 37 of the EC Treaty and that his actions therefore should not be deemed criminal. The preliminary ruling of the ECJ resulted in the discontinuing of Vin & Sprit’s monopoly on imports of alcoholic beverages to Sweden; however, the monopoly for retailing of alcoholic beverages could be remain with the state-owned Systembolaget primarily on grounds of public health considerations.

  14. 14.

    H. Ballebye Okholm, Konkurrensen på dagligvarumarknaden, Copenhagen Economics, Uppdragsforskning 2009:2, 2009.

  15. 15.

    Fællessekretariet for Konkurrencenævnet & Grønlands Forbrugerråd, Konkurrencestyrelsen, Konkurrensverket, Konkurransetilsynet, Samkeppniseftirlitið, Kilpailuvirasto and Kappingarráðið, Nordic Food Markets – a taste for competition, Report for the Nordic competition authorities, No. 1/2005.

  16. 16.

    K. Lundvall, Konsumenterna, matpriserna och konkurrensen, Konkurrensverkets rapportserie 2004:2, June 2004.

  17. 17.

    K. Lundvall, K. Viidas, De svenska priserna kan pressas!, Konkurrensverkets rapportserie 2002:5, December 2002 and J. Eliasson, C.-J. Hangström, Dagligvaruhandeln – Struktur, ägarform och relation till leverantörer, Konkurrensverkets rapportserie 2002:6, December 2006.

  18. 18.

    K. Lundvall, R. Odlander, Kan kommunerna pressa matpriserna?, Konkurrensverkets rapportserie 2001:4, October 2001.

  19. 19.

    Konkurrensverket, Konkurrensen i Sverige under 90-talet – problem och förslag.

  20. 20.

    Benchmarking av näringspolitiken 2002, Näringsdepartementet, Ds 2002:20.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law, OJ 1997 C 372, p. 5. See also NJA 2008 p. 120, Bornholmstrafikken and MD 2013:5, TeliaSonera.

  22. 22.

    KKV decision 747/2006, ICA AB/Netto. See also KKV Decision 744/2002, Fri Mat ek. för. and Axfood AB (publ.). This was also in line with the Commission’s decision in Kesko/Tuko, where the Commission held that “… the relevant market consists of the provision of a basket of fresh and dry food-stuffs, and non-food household consumables sold in a supermarket environment. The market does not include sales at specialised stores, kiosks and petrol stations. Instead these outlets provide a service that is complementary to those of supermarkets”. See Commission decision of 20 November 1996, M.784, Kesko/Tuko, p. 20.

  23. 23.

    MD 1997:11, VIVO Stockholm ekonomisk förening and members of VIVO Stockholm ek. för. v Konkurrensverket.

  24. 24.

    KKV decision 747/2006, ICA AB/Netto.

  25. 25.

    MD 1997:11, VIVO Stockholm ekonomisk förening and members of VIVO Stockholm ek. för. v Konkurrensverket. Similar delineation of markets have been done in the KKV decision 570/95, Kooperativa Detaljhandelsgruppen AB (KDAB)/Konsum Öst, ek.för.

  26. 26.

    KKV decision 445/2011, Arla Foods amba/Milko ek. för.

  27. 27.

    KKV decision 615/2000, Carlsberg A/S and Carlsberg Breweries A/Pripps Ringnes AB.

  28. 28.

    KKV decision 841/2011, Cloetta AB publ/Leaf Holland B.V.

  29. 29.

    KKV decision 606/2008, Fazer Bageri/Lantmännen Färskbröd AB.

  30. 30.

    KKV decision 123/2006, Swedish Meats ek. för./SLP Pärsons AB.

  31. 31.

    KKV decision 694/2000, Cerealia AB/Kvarn AB Juvel.

  32. 32.

    KKV decision 747/2006, ICA AB/Netto.

  33. 33.

    Dagens Industri section 2, DI Dimension, Nr 4, May 16, 2013.

  34. 34.

    See Regulation 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1. In addition, there are also a large number of detailed EU Regulations in several fields that have an impact on the Swedish food sector. The Swedish Food Act (Livsmedelslagen SFS 2006:804) complements the EU Regulations. It also contains rules on food control authorities and sanctions for violating the regulations. Furthermore, EU Directives are transposed into National Food Agency’s (Livsmedelsverket) regulations and published in the NFA’s own Code of Statutes, LIVSFS (previously SLVFS). The NFA has been authorised to issue legislation primarily as laid down in the Food Act and the Food Ordinance (livsmedelsförordningen, SFS 2006:813).

  35. 35.

    Konkurrensverkets allmänna råd om avtal av mindre betydelse (bagatellavtal) som inte omfattas av förbudet i 2 kap. 1 § konkurrenslagen (2008:579), KKVFS 2009:1.

  36. 36.

    See L. Henriksson, Two Novelties in Swedish Competition Law: Fine Order and Trading Prohibition – A Critical Review, in H.H. Lidgard, (ed.) National Developments In the Intersection of IPR and Competition Law, Swedish Studies in European Law, vol. 3, 2011, pp. 263–281.

  37. 37.

    See U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. PKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Article 4.a of Commission Regulation 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1, in conjunction with Swedish Act (2008:581) concerning block exemption on vertical anti-competitive agreements. Generally about RPMs in Sweden, see further L. Henriksson, Distributionsavtal – vertikala avtal och konkurrensrättsliga aspekter, Norstedts Stockholm 2012, p. 126.

  39. 39.

    MD 2002:5, Svenska Bokhandlareföreningen v Månadens Bok, Bonnierförlagen AB/Norstedts Förlag AB/Bokförlaget Forum AB/Perigab AB HB.

  40. 40.

    Cf. ECJ, case C-62/86, AKZO Chemie BV v Commission, ECR 1991, p. I-3359; ECJ, case C-333/94 P, Tetra Pak International SA v Commission, ECR 1996, p. I-5951; ECJ, case C-202/07 P, France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 2009, p. I-2369 and case CJEU, C-209/10, Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (not yet published).

  41. 41.

    KKV Decision 93/95, ICA Handlarnas AB v Master Foods.

  42. 42.

    ECJ, case 27/76, United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 1978, p. 207.

  43. 43.

    Commission decisions of 23 July 2004, COMP/A.36.568/D3, Scandlines Sverige AB v Port of Helsingborg, and case COMP/A.36.570/D3, Sundbusserne v Port of Helsingborg.

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., N. Wahl, Exploitative high prices and Europan competition law – a personal reflection. In: The Pros and Cons of High Prices, KKV 2007, pp. 47–64; L. Henriksson, Konkurrensrättsöverträdelser – Ekonomisk analys i den juridiska processen, Norstedts, 2013, p. 213.

  45. 45.

    SFS 1989:978.

  46. 46.

    Lag (1994:1512) om avtalsvillkor i konsumentförhållanden and lag (1984:292) om avtalsvillkor mellan näringsidkare.

  47. 47.

    SFS 2000:1025.

  48. 48.

    SFS 2010:900.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Business Law, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lars Henriksson

Authors
  1. Lars Henriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Henriksson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. de Weck, Zoells & Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

  2. Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  3. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henriksson, L. (2015). Sweden. In: Kobel, P., Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B. (eds) Antitrust in the Groceries Sector & Liability Issues in Relation to Corporate Social Responsibility. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45753-5_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation