Executive Search and Retained Recruitment across ANZ & APAC, from senior executives to key management roles.

In the FMCG and food manufacturing sector, we glorify customer wins. The logos on pitch decks. The volume metrics in board reports. The partnership language that implies mutual growth. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Many mid-market FMCG businesses are quietly being crushed by the very customer relationships they once celebrated. So let’s ask the real question: What happens when your biggest customer becomes your biggest liability? A Dangerous Dependency No One Wants to Own Australian suppliers are no strangers to margin pressure. Whether you’re supplying Coles, Woolworths, or Costco, the power dynamics are rarely in your favour. A 2024 report by PwC shows that while 85% of Australian CEOs believe their businesses will remain viable for a decade if they maintain current strategies, the same report highlights a global shift towards faster business model reinvention — driven largely by dependency risks and commercial stagnation. In other words, the Australian market has become dangerously complacent. Companies stay anchored to one major retail relationship — because it’s familiar, because it’s comfortable, and because no one wants to say what everyone already knows: This relationship is now costing us more than it makes. The Structural Trap — Why Choice is an Illusion in Australian Retail And it’s not just about comfort. It’s also about limited choice. Australia’s grocery retail landscape is one of the most concentrated in the developed world. Woolworths and Coles account for over 65% of the total market. Add Aldi and Costco, and four players control the overwhelming majority of national grocery volume. This leaves most mid-market FMCG suppliers with only two real options to scale. You either win one of the majors — or you don’t grow. There’s no Tesco vs Sainsbury’s. No Target vs Kroger. No regional chain ecosystem to spread risk. So when a Woolworths or Coles listing lands, businesses go all in — not because they’re naive, but because structurally, they don’t have a viable alternative. And once they’re in, the retailer holds all the cards: promotional demands, packaging changes, supply chain compliance, and extended payment terms. This is how overexposure starts: not as a failure of strategy, but as a feature of the system. The Margin Myth: “Strategic Partnership” or Slow Suffocation? The term “strategic partner” implies shared goals and equitable benefit. But in many supplier-retailer relationships, that’s not how it plays out. Suppliers absorb freight increases, packaging changes, and promotional discounts — all in the name of partnership. Meanwhile, average net margins in Australian FMCG hover below 5% in many categories. Some, especially in private-label or chilled goods, are significantly lower. If you're constantly renegotiating, discounting, and funding promotional calendars to stay on shelf — you're not in a partnership. You're in a hostage situation with quarterly reviews. And the worst part? Most leadership teams can’t afford to walk away — and the customer knows it. Commercial Blind Spots: How Did We Let It Get This Far? It usually starts innocently. One major account grows, fast. The ops team scales up. Forecasts look strong. Then the volume dips. Forecasts aren’t met. But by then, too much infrastructure, headcount and internal process are built around a single customer. So you make the classic trade-offs: You hold off on new channel development. You delay diversification. You keep servicing at full cost — for diminishing returns. The account grows riskier with every passing quarter. But no one wants to put their hand up and say: “We’re overexposed. We built the business around a single buyer. And now we’re stuck.” How Businesses Get Trapped — And What the Alternative Looks Like The deeper question is: how are businesses ending up in this position to begin with? It’s not usually poor strategy. It’s the seduction of fast volume. A major retailer comes in with a large forecast, national exposure, and prestige. Execs say yes. Operations scale. Sales teams build pipelines around that one account. It becomes the centre of gravity for the entire business. And by the time volume doesn’t meet forecast, the machine is already too big to pivot. Warehousing, labour, production schedules — everything is now calibrated to serve one customer. But what’s the alternative? The most resilient FMCG brands in Australia are the ones who build multi-channel portfolios from day one. That means: Diversifying into DTC, foodservice, or independents, even when it’s slow to scale. Prioritising cost-to-serve data so every account’s profitability is clear — not just revenue. Rewarding commercial teams for profitable growth, not just top-line expansion. Investing in longer-term resilience, even if it means slower growth upfront. This approach doesn’t grab headlines. But it builds optionality. It gives leaders the power to say no. And that, ultimately, is how you get out of the trap. The Denial Loop: Why Leadership Doesn’t Act Sooner So why don’t businesses pivot faster? Because the consequences of admitting overdependence are immediate — cost cuts, tough board conversations, sometimes job losses. Admitting the issue feels riskier than managing the decline. Boards often get sugar-coated updates about “strong relationships” and “opportunities in the pipeline.” Meanwhile, account managers know that POs are getting shorter, shelf space is shrinking, and payment terms are stretching. But no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. The loyalty to that one big customer becomes a form of inertia. What Brave Commercial Leadership Looks Like Fixing this doesn’t mean severing key accounts. It means reassessing risk and rebuilding margin discipline — even if it’s painful in the short term. Here’s what commercial bravery looks like in this context: Modelling account risk exposure: What happens if your top customer halves their orders tomorrow? What if payment terms stretch to 120 days? Redefining your internal narrative: Stop calling a margin-eroding customer a “partner.” Start calling it what it is — a risk. Rebalancing your portfolio: Incentivise sales teams to win new channels, even at lower volume. Diversification is margin insurance. Rebuilding cost-to-serve models: Know exactly what it costs to service each account — down to logistics, chargebacks, and admin drag. This is what commercial leadership must look like in 2025. The Silent Crisis in Mid-Market FMCG This isn't just a one-off case study. It's a pattern playing out across Australia’s mid-market FMCG and manufacturing base. KPMG’s 2024 disruption report found that 52% of private companies list supply chain disruptions and over-dependence on external suppliers or customers as key threats to growth — but only 43% are actively addressing it. It’s not a strategic issue. It’s a leadership one. And it’s playing out in boardrooms right now. What’s at Stake? Everything. If your business is too dependent on one customer, you’re not in control of your own future. One category review, one change in buyer, one corporate acquisition — and your volume is gone overnight. Commercial leadership isn’t about maintaining the status quo. It’s about having the courage to act before the numbers force your hand. So ask yourself: Where are we quietly overexposed? What have we built our business around that’s now becoming a liability? And do we have the courage to change it — before the market makes that decision for us? This isn’t just about one customer. It’s about the future shape of your business. And the longer you avoid the truth, the more power you give away.

Australia’s health, wellness, and supplements sector isn’t just growing. It’s exploding. From functional drinks to adaptogenic gummies, wellness brands have gone from niche to mainstream in record time. The industry is now worth over $5.6 billion, up from $4.7 billion in 2020 — a 19% growth in just three years. IBISWorld projects continued expansion with a CAGR of 5.3% through 2028. But behind the glossy packaging and influencer campaigns, something else is happening: the regulators have arrived. And most wellness brands? They’re underprepared. From Trend to Target The boom brought founders, fitness coaches, nutritionists, and marketing entrepreneurs into the supplement space. What many built was impressive. But what most forgot was how fast wellness moves from enthusiasm to enforcement. With more than 40 infringement notices and administrative sanctions in Q1 alone, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) strengthened enforcement of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in early 2024. Prominent companies were named in public. Soon after, the ACCC revised its guidelines for influencer marketing disclosures and launched a campaign against the use of pseudoscientific terminology in product marketing. TGA head Professor Anthony Lawler noted in March 2024: “We’re seeing an unacceptably high level of non-compliance, particularly around unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.” In short: credibility is the new battleground. Why Sales-First Leadership is Failing Too many brands are still led by executives whose playbooks were built on community engagement, retail hustle, and Instagram fluency. That got them early traction. But it won’t keep them compliant — or protect them from an investor exodus when the lawsuits begin. The biggest risks now are not formulation errors. They’re: Claims breaches Compliance negligence Advertising missteps Unqualified health endorsements Reputational collapse through regulatory exposure And these aren’t theoretical. The TGA pulled 197 listed medicines from the market in 2023 alone — a 42% increase on the previous year — due to non-compliant claims or sponsor breaches. What the Next Wellness Leader Looks Like This is where many boards and founders face a difficult transition. The next generation of leadership in wellness isn’t defined by hustle. It’s defined by: Deep regulatory fluency Cross-functional commercial leadership (eComm, retail, pharma, FMCG) Reputation management under pressure Ability to scale with scrutiny, not just speed The leadership profiles now needed aren’t coming out of marketing agencies — they’re coming out of pharmaceuticals, healthtech, and functional food. They’ve sat on regulatory committees. They’ve built compliance-first commercial strategies. They understand how to win trust, not just impressions. Yes, this might feel like a shift away from the founder-led energy that made these brands exciting. But it’s not about slowing down. It’s about making sure you’re still standing when the music stops. Where the Gaps Are The underlying problem isn’t just non-compliance. It's immaturity in structural leadership. The majority of wellness brands haven't developed: An accountable governance structure; a scalable compliance architecture; a risk-aware marketing culture; and any significant succession planning beyond the founder. In fact, a 2023 survey by Complementary Medicines Australia found that only 22% of wellness businesses had dedicated compliance leadership at executive level, and just 14% had formal succession plans in place. This isn’t sustainable — not at scale, and certainly not under scrutiny. Final Thought The wellness boom isn’t over. But the rules have changed. Rapid growth is no longer enough. The brands that win from here will be those with: A compliance culture baked in Leadership teams built for complexity A board that sees regulation not as a barrier, but a brand advantage Those who don’t? They could be one audit away from crisis.