In the wake of the protests against the high cost of living in Martinique, the most radical activists are pointing the finger at the responsibility of local food distribution players: market leader GBH is notably accused of abusing a situation of " monopoly This theory has resonated with the Minister of Overseas Territories, Manuel Valls, who recently challenged the group before the National Assembly. In the face of these recurring attacks, a critical examination of the facts is necessary to determine what is true and what is false. A dive into the heart of an explosive subject.
On June 24, 2025, in the National Assembly, Socialist MP Béatrice Bellay criticized the government for its inaction in Martinique and its failure to comply with the protocol agreement against the high cost of living negotiated on October 16, 2024. Faced with the attack, the Minister of Overseas Territories, Manuel Valls, affirmed that he was acting " by denouncing the practices of the GBH group, by publishing decrees and circulars [and] by presenting a text in July » of the law on the high cost of living.
When the Minister of Overseas Territories attacks the " information » from GBH in Martinique
This is a rare occurrence: a full-time minister has specifically named a company before the national assembly. As the market leader in mass retail in Martinique, GBH is the focus of criticism from the most radical activists against the high cost of living: they accuse the group of taking advantage of a position of " monopoly " to generate excessive margins, to the detriment of the local population.
The Fedom (Federation of Overseas Businesses) immediately reacted, via a press release criticizing Manuel Valls' choice of " to once again shift the responsibility for the high cost of living onto the backs of businesses, with the unjustifiable blacklisting of one of them, GBH " By coincidence, on the very morning of the controversial intervention, Stéphane Hayot, CEO of GBH, had, in an interview with Echoes, presented his line of defense: he maintains that large-scale distribution is not responsible for the high cost of living in Martinique, and that the accusations of monopoly and abusive margins are unfounded.
Monopoly on large-scale distribution in Martinique: myth or reality?
No one disputes it: prices are higher in the overseas territories than in mainland France. In Martinique, INSEE estimates the additional cost for food products at 40%. Is this gap explained by a monopoly on distribution? The Competition Authority, an independent body, hardly suspected of being complacent with businesses, has issued a rfull contribution on the subject, in 2019, concluding that there was " no malfunction » on the mass distribution market in Martinique.
The situation does not appear to have changed since then. Indeed, according to VIGIE data from August 2024, the GBH group is certainly the sector leader in Martinique, with a 26,8% market share, but it is closely followed by two players, CREO and Parfait (22,5% and 21,7%), then by the SAFO group (10,9%). In total, the top four distributors share 81,9% of the market, the top six 93,2%.
Whatever one thinks of this situation, it is in all respects similar to that of metropolitan France, with a leader, Leclerc (24,1%), followed by three strong competitors, Carrefour (22%), Intermarché (17,5%) and Système U (12%): the top four distributors control 75,6% of the market, the top six 92,8%. Similar balances are found, more or less, in most Western European countries.
The high prices in Martinique cannot be explained by anything other than distributor margins.
To accusations of setting artificially high prices, the Competition Authority responds by pointing to margin levels " strictly comparable » to those practiced in France, around 2%. On June 12, 2025, GBH filed its consolidated accounts for the 2024 financial year: for the mass distribution sector, the group's profit reached 2,5% of its turnover, compared to 4% for all of its activities. Mass distribution therefore remains a profitable activity for GBH, but far from the excesses denounced.
Beyond these accusations, well-documented causes explain the gap in food prices between mainland France and Martinique: the distance and the narrowness of a market of 360 inhabitants. 000% of the references present in stores are imported, directly or indirectly: distributors pass on the additional costs linked to this distance to the final price, in particular the approach costs (transport and storage) and " the sea tax ».
At the same time, the narrowness of the market prevents any economies of scale, and imposes higher operating costs than in mainland France (higher land costs, overstocking, greater risk of stock shortages, etc.). These additional costs also weigh on local producers, thus having an impact on the products made in Martinique.
Manuel Valls's red rag
To reduce prices, fiscal and regulatory levers therefore appear to be the most effective, as shown by the memorandum of understanding on the high cost of living of October 16, 2024, signed by distributors, local authorities, and the State. To improve the accessibility of 6 basic necessities, the former reduced their margins by €000 million (including more than €12 million for GBH), the latter eliminated the dock dues on these products, and the third applied a 2% VAT rate. These combined efforts have reduced prices by an average of 0%, concretely improving the purchasing power of Martinicans.
If the 20% reduction target was not met, it was because the State did not keep its commitments to compensate for approach costs. MP Béatrice Bellay's criticisms focused on the wait-and-see attitude, even the unwillingness, of the public authorities on this issue. Probably unwilling to respond to the substance of the matter, Manuel Valls preferred to wave the red flag of corporate responsibility, led by GBH. The maneuver is nothing original, but it discredits the government's message through problematic untruths.
Yet local businesses play a central role in the overseas economy: in Martinique, GBH is both the largest employer and leader in the distribution sector. This position tends to amplify the responsibility of these stakeholders in the event of a crisis, as they remain indispensable partners in addressing the structural problems of purchasing power in the overseas territories.
