Supermarkets in developed countries such as the UK offer fresh produce at low prices, 24 h a day and 363 days a year. The management of this supply is co-ordinated mostly through intermediary firms and cooperatives known as ‘grower-packers’ who in turn co-ordinate large numbers of growers in the UK, Spain and other countries, to meet orders and service level agreements. Consumers are promised low prices, and it is difficult for the intermediaries and other growers to realise more than a 1–۲% net margin on turnover .1 Consequently, wages paid are low and there is little evidence of owner-managers in what are largely family-run businesses being able to take dividends from the business. In fact, many businesses are supported by Directors’ loans and there is little room for reinvestment without taking on substantial loan finance. Despite some local differences, similar situations exist in other countries where food systems are dominated by a small number of supermarkets, particularly in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia (Burch & Lawrence, 2007; Nicholson & Young, 2012). We carried out interviews with representatives of three major grower-packers supplying between them around 50% of the UK’s fresh produce. Initially we were interested in how intermediary businesses in food supply networks established management controls, performance measurement and risk management between themselves and their supply network partners. From the available data, it became very clear that the constraints the intermediaries faced in terms of using information from control systems in negotiations with supermarkets (their major customers) were contextualised by them in terms of unequal relationships and allegedly unfair practices. Similarly, the managers construed their dealings with suppliers (and the suppliers with the grower-packers) in terms of their attempts to be fair.