While competition is the lifeblood of innovation and market growth, some organisations and trade associations continue to adopt restrictive measures that hinder fair competition and stifle smaller businesses.
One concerning trend involves the use of closed platforms or exclusive systems that force businesses into a one-size-fits-all product. These practices are aided & abetted by trade associations who state in correspondence: “We do not specifically recognise or promote specific external providers schemes”. At the same time, they publish in their charter:
“All drivers delivering for members require a driver skills card (MPQC or other industry scheme).”
This is a glaring contradiction, and the trade association has yet to define or explain what they mean by “other industry schemes” when available choices are obvious. This lack of transparency & co-operation is a serious concern which could be described as a ‘thinly veiled monopoly’.
The Dangers of Market Dominance
By mandating that only one product or system can be used for certifications, inductions, or compliance, the result is an environment where market dominance by the majors is guaranteed. The danger here is clear: smaller or alternative providers, who may offer innovative solutions or better service, are effectively shut out. In the long run, the very fabric of a healthy, competitive market is weakened, with customers paying the ultimate price through reduced choice, higher costs, and zero choice.
This becomes even more problematic when such a platform is developed and controlled by a trade association-backed organisation that uses it to maintain their market dominance. Is this about streamlining processes, safety & efficiency, or is it about protecting market share?
Legal Implications: UK Competition Law
Anti-competitive practices are not just ethically questionable, they are also illegal. UK competition law — specifically the Competition Act 1998 — prohibits agreements or practices that distort or restrict competition. When large companies band together to enforce a single system or to exclude alternatives, they risk crossing into legally dangerous territory. Exclusionary agreements or practices that prevent fair competition are scrutinised heavily by regulatory bodies such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
The troubling aspect is that this is not a new phenomenon. There have been past cases where companies in this industry were fined for ‘colluding to block competition’ or engaging in ‘market-sharing agreements’ that violated competition law. Yet, despite fines and investigations, some companies and trade associations seem to be doubling down on these practices, using new digital systems as a tool for ‘enforcing market control’.
Collaboration vs. Collusion: Understanding the Fine Line
While industry collaboration can be a powerful force for good—encouraging best practices, safety, and operational efficiency—there is a fine line between collaboration and collusion. Collaboration is about individuals or groups working together in an open and constructive manner to achieve a shared goal. Whereas collusion involves co-operation, typically aimed at gaining unfair advantages. While collaboration fosters transparency and teamwork, collusion is unethical and undermines trust and fairness.
It’s time for the industry to take a step back and assess whether the practices being implemented today are truly in the best interest of the market as a whole. Open systems, where multiple providers can offer competing solutions, are essential to maintaining a competitive and innovative landscape. Industry standards should not be controlled by a single platform, group of companies, or a trade association-backed organisation, but rather should be flexible, inclusive, and adaptable to new entrants. But turkeys seldom vote for Christmas.
A Call to Action: Protecting Fair Competition in the Industry
As professionals in the industry, we need to remain vigilant against the creeping spread of anti-competitive practices. If your company is being asked to comply with a closed system that limits choice or prevents innovation, it’s worth questioning whether this truly serves the market or merely entrenches the power of a few. We all benefit when industries are transparent, competitive, and fair.
In the end, fair competition is not just a legal requirement; it’s what drives us all forward. Let’s make sure we’re building industries that work for everyone—not just for those at the top.
Comments