RETAIL CHAMPION 2026 | EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING | LOCALNESS
What Makes a Store Feel Local?
Why growing retailers need to decide what should stay different from place to place.
Executive Intelligence Briefing
4–6 min read
SPOŁEM leads the 2026 Retail Champion Localness results at 39%, eleven percentage points ahead of the next displayed results. Yet some of the most interesting evidence sits much further down the ranking. Carrefour, for example, scores 16% despite operating a programme through which small producers can supply individual nearby stores.
That gap helps explain why Localness is not simply another measure of Polish sourcing. YouGov combines three shopper perceptions: whether the store has a good local or regional offer, whether products come from local providers and whether the retailer supports local communities. A retailer can buy extensively from Polish businesses and still leave shoppers with only a weak sense of connection to the particular place where they are shopping.
The difference becomes easier to understand when “local” stops being a statistic and becomes something the shopper can actually recognise: a producer, a town, a region or a community they know.
3,092
shopper surveys
Analysed in the YouGov study
21
retailers
Included in the research
July – September 2026
Fieldwork period
Members invited 1–2 days after a purchase
A name and a place
Carrefour's Kupujemy Lokalnie programme gives smaller producers a practical route into a large retail network. Instead of having to supply the whole chain, a producer can begin with an individual nearby store. In Bydgoszcz, a local-products zone opened in May 2026 with products from 36 local businesses.
Those examples do not explain Carrefour's Localness score, nor do they describe every Carrefour store. They show something more useful for understanding the category. A large organisation can create real local relationships, while those relationships remain much more visible in some stores and places than in others.
That is one of the difficulties of talking about Localness at national scale. A retailer can work with hundreds of Polish businesses, support food banks or buy substantial volumes from domestic suppliers. Those numbers may be important inside the company, but a shopper experiences only one branch at a time. If the producer is not named, the regional product is hard to identify and the community connection is invisible, the scale of the activity may tell the shopper very little about the place they are standing in.
The strongest local examples therefore become specific quite quickly. There is a bakery, farm, producer or cooperative that can be named. There is a town or region. There may be a school, club, food bank or other organisation people nearby recognise. The shopper does not need to understand the retailer's procurement structure to understand why that connection belongs here rather than somewhere else.
Keeping those differences alive, however, requires somebody inside the retailer to be able to choose them.
Some choices have to stay close to the store
An October Club of 369 discussion about SPOŁEM made that unusually tangible. One participant working with the organisation described three areas around which its proposition should differentiate: fresh food, bakery and own production, and local products together with private label. The starting point was the customer. SPOŁEM could not simply copy national discounters and compete around the same branded products at the same scale; its stores needed reasons to be chosen that fitted their own customers.
The same discussion also showed why that is not an easy model to manage. Decisions across SPOŁEM are highly dispersed, so a product that looks sensible from a broader market perspective can still be accepted in some cooperatives and rejected in others. One example discussed was mochi ice cream, which found acceptance in part of the organisation while other parts showed little interest.
That is not merely an odd detail about one product. It shows the advantage and the cost of keeping decisions close to individual markets. Local freedom can preserve suppliers, products and habits that would disappear if every store followed exactly the same national assortment. It can also make it harder to introduce a good new idea consistently when shopper behaviour changes.
SPOŁEM's 39% Localness result does not prove that its structure caused its leadership position; in fact, its score fell from 42% a year earlier. What the operating model helps us see is the decision sitting behind the shopper's experience. If every store has to buy and look exactly the same, there is less room for the place itself to influence what appears on the shelf. If every store decides everything alone, the network gives up some of the advantages of behaving as one business.
The question is therefore not whether central control or local control is better. Retailers need both. The harder part is deciding which choices benefit from being made once for the whole network and which lose something important when they move too far away from the local store.
What should stay different?
INTERMARCHÉ provides another version of that balance. It operates through independent Polish store owners within Grupa Muszkieterów, while those owners also participate in the group's central management. In the 2026 Localness results, INTERMARCHÉ moves from 22% to 25% and receives the Biggest Progress recognition after gaining five places.
Again, that structure does not explain the improvement. It does show how common capabilities and local decisions can exist inside the same organisation. Systems, standards, purchasing power and investment can benefit from scale, while store owners remain close enough to their markets to make choices that would make little sense at national level.
A bakery that matters in one town may mean nothing in another. A producer capable of supplying five nearby stores may never be suited to a national contract. A community relationship can become valuable because somebody knows which school, sports club, food bank or local organisation people actually care about. None of that requires every store to reinvent the business around it.
The shopper eventually sees the result of those choices rather than the structure that produced them. A regional product appears on the shelf or it does not. A producer is named or remains invisible. The store supports something people nearby recognise, or the activity disappears into a national programme. Some differences make the store more relevant to the place; others simply make the business harder to operate.
That distinction is where Localness becomes a management question rather than a marketing label. Which parts of the offer should genuinely change from one place to another? Who should be able to make those decisions? Which supplier and community relationships are important enough to protect as the network grows? And which activities should be standardised precisely so that local stores have more time and capacity for the differences that actually matter?
Across the Retail Champion briefings, shoppers have repeatedly encountered the outcome of decisions they never see being made: whether technology removes effort, whether a shopping trip works, whether a retailer is worth recommending, whether a loyalty benefit gives them a reason to return and whether healthier choices are easy to find. Localness exposes the same hidden layer from another direction. Retailers need many things to become more consistent as they grow, but they also need to recognise when consistency begins to erase something customers value.
Knowing which differences are worth keeping may be one of the harder decisions that comes with scale. It is also one of the questions we will continue exploring through the Club of 369 and at Poland & CEE Retail Summit 2027 in Warsaw on 13–14 April 2027.
Key takeaways
Buying from Polish suppliers does not always make a store feel local. SPOŁEM led the 2026 ranking at 39%; CARREFOUR scored 16%, despite working with smaller suppliers near some stores. Shoppers need a connection they can recognise in their own branch.
A local connection is easier to see when it has a name and a place. In Bydgoszcz, CARREFOUR opened a section with products from 36 local businesses. A familiar producer or town can mean more than a company-wide claim about where products come from.
As chains grow, some decisions need to stay close to the store. SPOŁEM's cooperatives can make many choices locally; INTERMARCHÉ combines independent owners with group-wide support. Shared rules help a network work together, while local freedom protects products and relationships that matter nearby.
RETAIL CHAMPION 2026 | EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING | LOCALNESS
What Makes a Store Feel Local?
Why growing retailers need to decide what should stay different from place to place.
Executive Intelligence Briefing
4–6 min read
SPOŁEM leads the 2026 Retail Champion Localness results at 39%, eleven percentage points ahead of the next displayed results. Yet some of the most interesting evidence sits much further down the ranking. Carrefour, for example, scores 16% despite operating a programme through which small producers can supply individual nearby stores.
That gap helps explain why Localness is not simply another measure of Polish sourcing. YouGov combines three shopper perceptions: whether the store has a good local or regional offer, whether products come from local providers and whether the retailer supports local communities. A retailer can buy extensively from Polish businesses and still leave shoppers with only a weak sense of connection to the particular place where they are shopping.
The difference becomes easier to understand when “local” stops being a statistic and becomes something the shopper can actually recognise: a producer, a town, a region or a community they know.
3,092
shopper surveys
Analysed in the YouGov study
21
retailers
Included in the research
July – September 2026
Fieldwork period
Members invited 1–2 days after a purchase
A name and a place
Carrefour's Kupujemy Lokalnie programme gives smaller producers a practical route into a large retail network. Instead of having to supply the whole chain, a producer can begin with an individual nearby store. In Bydgoszcz, a local-products zone opened in May 2026 with products from 36 local businesses.
Those examples do not explain Carrefour's Localness score, nor do they describe every Carrefour store. They show something more useful for understanding the category. A large organisation can create real local relationships, while those relationships remain much more visible in some stores and places than in others.
That is one of the difficulties of talking about Localness at national scale. A retailer can work with hundreds of Polish businesses, support food banks or buy substantial volumes from domestic suppliers. Those numbers may be important inside the company, but a shopper experiences only one branch at a time. If the producer is not named, the regional product is hard to identify and the community connection is invisible, the scale of the activity may tell the shopper very little about the place they are standing in.
The strongest local examples therefore become specific quite quickly. There is a bakery, farm, producer or cooperative that can be named. There is a town or region. There may be a school, club, food bank or other organisation people nearby recognise. The shopper does not need to understand the retailer's procurement structure to understand why that connection belongs here rather than somewhere else.
Keeping those differences alive, however, requires somebody inside the retailer to be able to choose them.
Some choices have to stay close to the store
An October Club of 369 discussion about SPOŁEM made that unusually tangible. One participant working with the organisation described three areas around which its proposition should differentiate: fresh food, bakery and own production, and local products together with private label. The starting point was the customer. SPOŁEM could not simply copy national discounters and compete around the same branded products at the same scale; its stores needed reasons to be chosen that fitted their own customers.
The same discussion also showed why that is not an easy model to manage. Decisions across SPOŁEM are highly dispersed, so a product that looks sensible from a broader market perspective can still be accepted in some cooperatives and rejected in others. One example discussed was mochi ice cream, which found acceptance in part of the organisation while other parts showed little interest.
That is not merely an odd detail about one product. It shows the advantage and the cost of keeping decisions close to individual markets. Local freedom can preserve suppliers, products and habits that would disappear if every store followed exactly the same national assortment. It can also make it harder to introduce a good new idea consistently when shopper behaviour changes.
SPOŁEM's 39% Localness result does not prove that its structure caused its leadership position; in fact, its score fell from 42% a year earlier. What the operating model helps us see is the decision sitting behind the shopper's experience. If every store has to buy and look exactly the same, there is less room for the place itself to influence what appears on the shelf. If every store decides everything alone, the network gives up some of the advantages of behaving as one business.
The question is therefore not whether central control or local control is better. Retailers need both. The harder part is deciding which choices benefit from being made once for the whole network and which lose something important when they move too far away from the local store.
What should stay different?
INTERMARCHÉ provides another version of that balance. It operates through independent Polish store owners within Grupa Muszkieterów, while those owners also participate in the group's central management. In the 2026 Localness results, INTERMARCHÉ moves from 22% to 25% and receives the Biggest Progress recognition after gaining five places.
Again, that structure does not explain the improvement. It does show how common capabilities and local decisions can exist inside the same organisation. Systems, standards, purchasing power and investment can benefit from scale, while store owners remain close enough to their markets to make choices that would make little sense at national level.
A bakery that matters in one town may mean nothing in another. A producer capable of supplying five nearby stores may never be suited to a national contract. A community relationship can become valuable because somebody knows which school, sports club, food bank or local organisation people actually care about. None of that requires every store to reinvent the business around it.
The shopper eventually sees the result of those choices rather than the structure that produced them. A regional product appears on the shelf or it does not. A producer is named or remains invisible. The store supports something people nearby recognise, or the activity disappears into a national programme. Some differences make the store more relevant to the place; others simply make the business harder to operate.
That distinction is where Localness becomes a management question rather than a marketing label. Which parts of the offer should genuinely change from one place to another? Who should be able to make those decisions? Which supplier and community relationships are important enough to protect as the network grows? And which activities should be standardised precisely so that local stores have more time and capacity for the differences that actually matter?
Across the Retail Champion briefings, shoppers have repeatedly encountered the outcome of decisions they never see being made: whether technology removes effort, whether a shopping trip works, whether a retailer is worth recommending, whether a loyalty benefit gives them a reason to return and whether healthier choices are easy to find. Localness exposes the same hidden layer from another direction. Retailers need many things to become more consistent as they grow, but they also need to recognise when consistency begins to erase something customers value.
Knowing which differences are worth keeping may be one of the harder decisions that comes with scale. It is also one of the questions we will continue exploring through the Club of 369 and at Poland & CEE Retail Summit 2027 in Warsaw on 13–14 April 2027.
Key takeaways
Buying from Polish suppliers does not always make a store feel local. SPOŁEM led the 2026 ranking at 39%; CARREFOUR scored 16%, despite working with smaller suppliers near some stores. Shoppers need a connection they can recognise in their own branch.
A local connection is easier to see when it has a name and a place. In Bydgoszcz, CARREFOUR opened a section with products from 36 local businesses. A familiar producer or town can mean more than a company-wide claim about where products come from.
As chains grow, some decisions need to stay close to the store. SPOŁEM's cooperatives can make many choices locally; INTERMARCHÉ combines independent owners with group-wide support. Shared rules help a network work together, while local freedom protects products and relationships that matter nearby.
RETAIL CHAMPION 2026 | EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING | LOCALNESS
What Makes a Store Feel Local?
Why growing retailers need to decide what should stay different from place to place.
Executive Intelligence Briefing
4–6 min read
SPOŁEM leads the 2026 Retail Champion Localness results at 39%, eleven percentage points ahead of the next displayed results. Yet some of the most interesting evidence sits much further down the ranking. Carrefour, for example, scores 16% despite operating a programme through which small producers can supply individual nearby stores.
That gap helps explain why Localness is not simply another measure of Polish sourcing. YouGov combines three shopper perceptions: whether the store has a good local or regional offer, whether products come from local providers and whether the retailer supports local communities. A retailer can buy extensively from Polish businesses and still leave shoppers with only a weak sense of connection to the particular place where they are shopping.
The difference becomes easier to understand when “local” stops being a statistic and becomes something the shopper can actually recognise: a producer, a town, a region or a community they know.
3,092
shopper surveys
Analysed in the YouGov study
21
retailers
Included in the research
July – September 2026
Fieldwork period
Members invited 1–2 days after a purchase
A name and a place
Carrefour's Kupujemy Lokalnie programme gives smaller producers a practical route into a large retail network. Instead of having to supply the whole chain, a producer can begin with an individual nearby store. In Bydgoszcz, a local-products zone opened in May 2026 with products from 36 local businesses.
Those examples do not explain Carrefour's Localness score, nor do they describe every Carrefour store. They show something more useful for understanding the category. A large organisation can create real local relationships, while those relationships remain much more visible in some stores and places than in others.
That is one of the difficulties of talking about Localness at national scale. A retailer can work with hundreds of Polish businesses, support food banks or buy substantial volumes from domestic suppliers. Those numbers may be important inside the company, but a shopper experiences only one branch at a time. If the producer is not named, the regional product is hard to identify and the community connection is invisible, the scale of the activity may tell the shopper very little about the place they are standing in.
The strongest local examples therefore become specific quite quickly. There is a bakery, farm, producer or cooperative that can be named. There is a town or region. There may be a school, club, food bank or other organisation people nearby recognise. The shopper does not need to understand the retailer's procurement structure to understand why that connection belongs here rather than somewhere else.
Keeping those differences alive, however, requires somebody inside the retailer to be able to choose them.
Some choices have to stay close to the store
An October Club of 369 discussion about SPOŁEM made that unusually tangible. One participant working with the organisation described three areas around which its proposition should differentiate: fresh food, bakery and own production, and local products together with private label. The starting point was the customer. SPOŁEM could not simply copy national discounters and compete around the same branded products at the same scale; its stores needed reasons to be chosen that fitted their own customers.
The same discussion also showed why that is not an easy model to manage. Decisions across SPOŁEM are highly dispersed, so a product that looks sensible from a broader market perspective can still be accepted in some cooperatives and rejected in others. One example discussed was mochi ice cream, which found acceptance in part of the organisation while other parts showed little interest.
That is not merely an odd detail about one product. It shows the advantage and the cost of keeping decisions close to individual markets. Local freedom can preserve suppliers, products and habits that would disappear if every store followed exactly the same national assortment. It can also make it harder to introduce a good new idea consistently when shopper behaviour changes.
SPOŁEM's 39% Localness result does not prove that its structure caused its leadership position; in fact, its score fell from 42% a year earlier. What the operating model helps us see is the decision sitting behind the shopper's experience. If every store has to buy and look exactly the same, there is less room for the place itself to influence what appears on the shelf. If every store decides everything alone, the network gives up some of the advantages of behaving as one business.
The question is therefore not whether central control or local control is better. Retailers need both. The harder part is deciding which choices benefit from being made once for the whole network and which lose something important when they move too far away from the local store.
What should stay different?
INTERMARCHÉ provides another version of that balance. It operates through independent Polish store owners within Grupa Muszkieterów, while those owners also participate in the group's central management. In the 2026 Localness results, INTERMARCHÉ moves from 22% to 25% and receives the Biggest Progress recognition after gaining five places.
Again, that structure does not explain the improvement. It does show how common capabilities and local decisions can exist inside the same organisation. Systems, standards, purchasing power and investment can benefit from scale, while store owners remain close enough to their markets to make choices that would make little sense at national level.
A bakery that matters in one town may mean nothing in another. A producer capable of supplying five nearby stores may never be suited to a national contract. A community relationship can become valuable because somebody knows which school, sports club, food bank or local organisation people actually care about. None of that requires every store to reinvent the business around it.
The shopper eventually sees the result of those choices rather than the structure that produced them. A regional product appears on the shelf or it does not. A producer is named or remains invisible. The store supports something people nearby recognise, or the activity disappears into a national programme. Some differences make the store more relevant to the place; others simply make the business harder to operate.
That distinction is where Localness becomes a management question rather than a marketing label. Which parts of the offer should genuinely change from one place to another? Who should be able to make those decisions? Which supplier and community relationships are important enough to protect as the network grows? And which activities should be standardised precisely so that local stores have more time and capacity for the differences that actually matter?
Across the Retail Champion briefings, shoppers have repeatedly encountered the outcome of decisions they never see being made: whether technology removes effort, whether a shopping trip works, whether a retailer is worth recommending, whether a loyalty benefit gives them a reason to return and whether healthier choices are easy to find. Localness exposes the same hidden layer from another direction. Retailers need many things to become more consistent as they grow, but they also need to recognise when consistency begins to erase something customers value.
Knowing which differences are worth keeping may be one of the harder decisions that comes with scale. It is also one of the questions we will continue exploring through the Club of 369 and at Poland & CEE Retail Summit 2027 in Warsaw on 13–14 April 2027.
Key takeaways
Buying from Polish suppliers does not always make a store feel local. SPOŁEM led the 2026 ranking at 39%; CARREFOUR scored 16%, despite working with smaller suppliers near some stores. Shoppers need a connection they can recognise in their own branch.
A local connection is easier to see when it has a name and a place. In Bydgoszcz, CARREFOUR opened a section with products from 36 local businesses. A familiar producer or town can mean more than a company-wide claim about where products come from.
As chains grow, some decisions need to stay close to the store. SPOŁEM's cooperatives can make many choices locally; INTERMARCHÉ combines independent owners with group-wide support. Shared rules help a network work together, while local freedom protects products and relationships that matter nearby.
RETAIL CHAMPION 2026 | EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING | LOCALNESS
What Makes a Store Feel Local?
Why growing retailers need to decide what should stay different from place to place.
Executive Intelligence Briefing
4–6 min read
SPOŁEM leads the 2026 Retail Champion Localness results at 39%, eleven percentage points ahead of the next displayed results. Yet some of the most interesting evidence sits much further down the ranking. Carrefour, for example, scores 16% despite operating a programme through which small producers can supply individual nearby stores.
That gap helps explain why Localness is not simply another measure of Polish sourcing. YouGov combines three shopper perceptions: whether the store has a good local or regional offer, whether products come from local providers and whether the retailer supports local communities. A retailer can buy extensively from Polish businesses and still leave shoppers with only a weak sense of connection to the particular place where they are shopping.
The difference becomes easier to understand when “local” stops being a statistic and becomes something the shopper can actually recognise: a producer, a town, a region or a community they know.
3,092
shopper surveys
Analysed in the YouGov study
21
retailers
Included in the research
July – September 2026
Fieldwork period
Members invited 1–2 days after a purchase
A name and a place
Carrefour's Kupujemy Lokalnie programme gives smaller producers a practical route into a large retail network. Instead of having to supply the whole chain, a producer can begin with an individual nearby store. In Bydgoszcz, a local-products zone opened in May 2026 with products from 36 local businesses.
Those examples do not explain Carrefour's Localness score, nor do they describe every Carrefour store. They show something more useful for understanding the category. A large organisation can create real local relationships, while those relationships remain much more visible in some stores and places than in others.
That is one of the difficulties of talking about Localness at national scale. A retailer can work with hundreds of Polish businesses, support food banks or buy substantial volumes from domestic suppliers. Those numbers may be important inside the company, but a shopper experiences only one branch at a time. If the producer is not named, the regional product is hard to identify and the community connection is invisible, the scale of the activity may tell the shopper very little about the place they are standing in.
The strongest local examples therefore become specific quite quickly. There is a bakery, farm, producer or cooperative that can be named. There is a town or region. There may be a school, club, food bank or other organisation people nearby recognise. The shopper does not need to understand the retailer's procurement structure to understand why that connection belongs here rather than somewhere else.
Keeping those differences alive, however, requires somebody inside the retailer to be able to choose them.
Some choices have to stay close to the store
An October Club of 369 discussion about SPOŁEM made that unusually tangible. One participant working with the organisation described three areas around which its proposition should differentiate: fresh food, bakery and own production, and local products together with private label. The starting point was the customer. SPOŁEM could not simply copy national discounters and compete around the same branded products at the same scale; its stores needed reasons to be chosen that fitted their own customers.
The same discussion also showed why that is not an easy model to manage. Decisions across SPOŁEM are highly dispersed, so a product that looks sensible from a broader market perspective can still be accepted in some cooperatives and rejected in others. One example discussed was mochi ice cream, which found acceptance in part of the organisation while other parts showed little interest.
That is not merely an odd detail about one product. It shows the advantage and the cost of keeping decisions close to individual markets. Local freedom can preserve suppliers, products and habits that would disappear if every store followed exactly the same national assortment. It can also make it harder to introduce a good new idea consistently when shopper behaviour changes.
SPOŁEM's 39% Localness result does not prove that its structure caused its leadership position; in fact, its score fell from 42% a year earlier. What the operating model helps us see is the decision sitting behind the shopper's experience. If every store has to buy and look exactly the same, there is less room for the place itself to influence what appears on the shelf. If every store decides everything alone, the network gives up some of the advantages of behaving as one business.
The question is therefore not whether central control or local control is better. Retailers need both. The harder part is deciding which choices benefit from being made once for the whole network and which lose something important when they move too far away from the local store.
What should stay different?
INTERMARCHÉ provides another version of that balance. It operates through independent Polish store owners within Grupa Muszkieterów, while those owners also participate in the group's central management. In the 2026 Localness results, INTERMARCHÉ moves from 22% to 25% and receives the Biggest Progress recognition after gaining five places.
Again, that structure does not explain the improvement. It does show how common capabilities and local decisions can exist inside the same organisation. Systems, standards, purchasing power and investment can benefit from scale, while store owners remain close enough to their markets to make choices that would make little sense at national level.
A bakery that matters in one town may mean nothing in another. A producer capable of supplying five nearby stores may never be suited to a national contract. A community relationship can become valuable because somebody knows which school, sports club, food bank or local organisation people actually care about. None of that requires every store to reinvent the business around it.
The shopper eventually sees the result of those choices rather than the structure that produced them. A regional product appears on the shelf or it does not. A producer is named or remains invisible. The store supports something people nearby recognise, or the activity disappears into a national programme. Some differences make the store more relevant to the place; others simply make the business harder to operate.
That distinction is where Localness becomes a management question rather than a marketing label. Which parts of the offer should genuinely change from one place to another? Who should be able to make those decisions? Which supplier and community relationships are important enough to protect as the network grows? And which activities should be standardised precisely so that local stores have more time and capacity for the differences that actually matter?
Across the Retail Champion briefings, shoppers have repeatedly encountered the outcome of decisions they never see being made: whether technology removes effort, whether a shopping trip works, whether a retailer is worth recommending, whether a loyalty benefit gives them a reason to return and whether healthier choices are easy to find. Localness exposes the same hidden layer from another direction. Retailers need many things to become more consistent as they grow, but they also need to recognise when consistency begins to erase something customers value.
Knowing which differences are worth keeping may be one of the harder decisions that comes with scale. It is also one of the questions we will continue exploring through the Club of 369 and at Poland & CEE Retail Summit 2027 in Warsaw on 13–14 April 2027.
Key takeaways
Buying from Polish suppliers does not always make a store feel local. SPOŁEM led the 2026 ranking at 39%; CARREFOUR scored 16%, despite working with smaller suppliers near some stores. Shoppers need a connection they can recognise in their own branch.
A local connection is easier to see when it has a name and a place. In Bydgoszcz, CARREFOUR opened a section with products from 36 local businesses. A familiar producer or town can mean more than a company-wide claim about where products come from.
As chains grow, some decisions need to stay close to the store. SPOŁEM's cooperatives can make many choices locally; INTERMARCHÉ combines independent owners with group-wide support. Shared rules help a network work together, while local freedom protects products and relationships that matter nearby.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Explore more insights from Retail Champion
Read the full 2026 report and discover how retail, consumer goods and FMCG professionals can become part of the Club of 369.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Explore more insights from Retail Champion
Read the full 2026 report and discover how retail, consumer goods and FMCG professionals can become part of the Club of 369.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Explore more insights from Retail Champion
Read the full 2026 report and discover how retail, consumer goods and FMCG professionals can become part of the Club of 369.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Explore more insights from Retail Champion
Read the full 2026 report and discover how retail, consumer goods and FMCG professionals can become part of the Club of 369.