Supporting Local
Businesses and Workers
Economic Impacts of
Oliver’s Market
June 2025
Economic Forensics and Analytics
Petaluma, CA 94975
[email protected]
1 Executive Summary
Oliver’s Market affects Sonoma County’s economy because Oliver’s sources more of its goods locally and is locally owned. By sourcing more goods sold locally, Oliver’s creates larger economic impacts on businesses throughout Sonoma County than grocers/retailers of similar size that buy less locally. “Local” in this study means Sonoma County. Data from Oliver’s in 2024 showed that 32.3 percent of Oliver’s goods sold in its four stores were purchased from local producers. We assume national chains purchase approximately 15.2 percent of their goods sold from local vendors. Oliver’s service vendors (such as plumbing services when needed) and its workers were almost all from Sonoma County; we assume national chains had fewer local workers for a similar size because of their central operations outside Sonoma County. Alongside employee ownership, these three ways are how Oliver’s creates a greater economic impact on Sonoma County than a similar-sized grocery chain headquartered elsewhere.
Oliver’s sales in 2024 created $328.1 million in countywide business revenue (including $19.6 million in tax revenues paid to state and local governments) and supported 1,197 jobs in Sonoma County.
Buying $100 worth of local products from Oliver’s creates $185.00 of economic impact for the Sonoma County economy, combining business revenue effects and direct effects on household incomes from local buying, hiring, and ownership. When buying at a national or regional chain, the same $100 bag of groceries only circulates $131 in Sonoma County based on current fewer local purchases of goods sold, employees and profits not staying in Sonoma County; if $0 in the shopper’s bag was purchased locally by the national grocer, that $100 bag now only circulates $53.00 due to leakages versus Oliver’s $185.
Table EX-1 shows summary comparisons with Olivers and national chains at 15.2 percent, and then zero percent local purchases of goods sold.
Table EX-1: Summary Effects of Local Buying Behavior by Oliver’s Market $100 sold at Oliver's sourcing 32.3% local vs. $100 of the same goods by a non-local Grocer sourcing 15.2% local
At
Oliver's
At
Non-local
% Difference
in Incomes
2019
% Diff
Incomes Generated (includes taxes paid) $185 $131 41% 60% $100 sold at Oliver's sourcing 32.3% local vs. $100 of the same goods by a non-local Grocer sourcing 0% local
At
Oliver's
At
Non-local
% Difference
In Incomes
2019
% Diff
Incomes Generated (includes taxes paid) $185 $56 249% 182% 2 1. Introduction
This study used data from calendar-year 2024 concerning Oliver’s Market (Oliver’s) and its business operations to update a 2019 study examining Oliver’s economic impacts on Sonoma County, California. Oliver’s is headquartered in Sonoma County and has a regional purchasing strategy to utilize local supply chains and attempt to reduce “leakage” from Sonoma County; when a local retailer sources its goods sold and services purchased from outside the merchant’s primary service area, that spending “leaks” incomes and tax revenues that could have remained local to other places. Sonoma County is seen as the “local” area here. Sourcing locally circulates more income in Sonoma County. It creates larger, local “multiplier” effects from their sales: spending at Oliver’s expands business and household incomes locally at higher levels than grocers/retailers that source a lower proportion of goods sold locally.
Being locally owned and operated, Oliver expands its economic footprint in Sonoma County. Oliver’s hiring of local workers and net income distribution create more income for residents working at Oliver’s and living in Sonoma County. National chains otherwise do provide scale and lower prices for their customers; profits are distributed worldwide, and some workers are in central offices away from store locations. Local grocer retention and growth, where Sonoma County households and visitors are customers for such grocers, and local vendors selling local goods and services to local grocers/retailers are essential steps toward better economic resilience, as seen in the economic impact estimates below.
This report has the following sections. Section 2 provides an overview of local sourcing and assumptions made to estimate and compare regional economic impacts of Oliver’s and national chain grocers. Section 3 describes economic impacts and how multiplier effects work. Section 4 utilizes Oliver’s Market's 2024 data, along with some assumptions and national data, to estimate the economic impact on Sonoma County of buying and selling locally, as compared to other grocers/retailers.
1 Section 4 provides a summary of the economic impacts, including their breadth and depth, and compares them to a scenario with limited local sourcing. Section 5 provides conclusions and summary thoughts.
1 Oliver’s provided EFA data on employee levels and zipcodes where employees live as of 2024 year-end. Oliver’s also provided sales volumes and cost of goods sold by local (in Sonoma County) versus non-local (all other places). Data from IMPLAN® and the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis data for Sonoma County helped determine the example percentage of locally-purchased goods for national-chain grocers.
3 2. Why Sourcing Locally Has Larger Economic Effects Regionally When a retailer sources locally, customer spending supports local businesses and connects customers to local farmers, manufacturers, and wholesalers. Those connections extend marketing efforts and attract/retain customers toward products from local businesses they can visit otherwise. Economics as a social science focuses on how changing incentives affect human behavior; how businesses convince their customers to buy certain items, continue to return to the retailer, and spend more while in the store is one practical application of marketing. 2 Low prices at national grocery chains,
which source goods globally and sell them in local retail outlets, have an incentive advantage over smaller, regional grocers. Lower prices naturally attract customers, creating income leakages and connections to local communities. Offering goods sourced outside the local area is one way to develop such leakages. Having non-local ownership and central offices are other ways; employee hiring (unless the retailer is on a county or state border) is generally local due to commute patterns and retailer needs for worker time. For this study, Sonoma County is the “local area”.
The economic impact estimates in Section 4 show two types of businesses: (1) Oliver’s in 2024, with
32.3 percent of goods sold being purchased from local vendors; and (2) a non-locally owned grocer/retailer selling 15.2 percent of its total goods sold purchased locally. We also assume that a national chain grocer/retailer hires some workers at a central location, whereas Oliver’s locally hires in central locations where stores are located. Offering a wide array of goods makes it challenging for a retailer to source 100 percent of the goods it sells within a small radius of its store location. By design, Oliver’s thinks of local sources first, then outside sources.
Leakages occur when business and wage incomes, jobs, and tax revenues shift from one location to another, as goods and services are sourced from outside the area. Figure 1 provides a simple diagram for how Oliver’s buys locally and then sells locally, reducing such leakages. When policy or geopolitical changes occur, new costs may be introduced that Oliver’s may be shielded from, given local buying behavior (such as tariffs). There are more leakages (and smaller economic impacts) when grocery stores buy fewer goods from local vendors. Each link in Figure 1 has different possibilities, but connecting “Local” (suppliers) to “Local” (retailers) to “Local” (customers and owners) maximizes the local area’s potential benefits and circulates more business revenue, supports more local jobs, and generates more tax revenues and profits locally. A simple example is a local 2 This idea is a foundation of “go local” strategies. See Dunne, et al. (2010) for more, as well as Printezis and Grebitus (2018) for good background works. See Kloczko-Gajewska, et al. (2024) for discussions of economic impacts in localized food-supply chains. See Hicks, et al. (2025) for a counterpoint of sorts. 4 farmer growing vegetables, selling them directly to a local grocer, and then selling them to local residents. Grocers like Oliver’s may also act as distributors for other retailers or restaurants; for example, a local chef may purchase vegetables, fruit, bread, and other “inputs” from Oliver’s due to its breadth of local, high-quality products available in one place.
Figure 1: Oliver’s Supply Chain and Local Buying Opportunities Sum = Local Benefits of Buying and Selling Local
Oliver’s as a business has expanded over the last ten years. Between 2019 and 2024, Oliver’s Market total sales revenue grew at a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 3.97 percent per year. With larger revenue levels resulting from growth, the local economic effects also expand in dollar terms.
Oliver’s purchased approximately $42.9 million from local vendors in 2024, accounting for 32.3 percent of total sales in 2024. Local wages and distributions to local ownership augment incomes made at Oliver’s, which creates more income in Sonoma County (see Table 1). Oliver’s also creates leakages, like any other retailer, but strives to minimize those leakages from Sonoma County. Figure 2 illustrates how leakages are created when more foreign sourcing substitutes for local goods, resulting in a reduction in the economic benefits of local retail activity compared to what they could be. 5 Figure 2: Why Leakages Matter: Non-Local Retailers Create Less Value-Add Locally Sum = Local Benefits Lost from Buying Less from Local Suppliers.
The following two sections provide more details on the economic multiplier effect and how Oliver's enhances local economic impacts versus grocers with lower levels of local sourcing.
3. Economic Impacts of Buying Locally: A Larger Multiplier Figure 3 shows the multiplier effect for any business in theory. Economic impacts come in three “waves”: direct, indirect, and induced. Oliver’s level of sales and subsequent employment levels initiate the process in Figure 3, as shown by the direct impacts. Due to these direct impacts, Oliver’s spending on vendors, its employees, and on growing its business generates more jobs and incomes in Sonoma County.
Indirect impacts come from spending by directly-affected vendors, allowing vendors to hire workers and spend on other vendors to broaden spending regionally. The grocer/retailer’s workers also generate business revenues based on where and how they spend their wages. For example, when a newly-hired grocery clerk at Oliver’s goes out to eat at a restaurant in Santa Rosa, there are indirect effects from Oliver’s operations on the restaurant, its workers, and the tax revenues it generates from selling that meal. The restaurant may use more of a locally-based linen cleaner’s services than before, creating broader effects from the grocery clerk’s spending. Such additional business revenues and 6 supported jobs create induced impacts from indirectly-affected workers and business spending. For example, a new linen-service worker, hired due to the restaurant’s additional income described above, may visit clothing stores, auto repair shops, the doctor’s office, and hundreds of other local businesses more frequently, which in turn induces further growth in retail sales, employment, and taxes. These effects, in sum, are the total or overall economic impacts.
Figure 3: Economic Impacts
Oliver’s sales revenues begin their local economic impacts; on an annual basis, local customer support leads to local workers (wages and salaries), local goods vendors (cost of goods sold), other expenses (including additional local vendors, but also including non-local vendors for goods and services), and profits to become other business and household incomes. The following section estimates Oliver’s economic effects on Sonoma County compared to similar-sized grocers/retailers with smaller localbuying proportions, as a percentage of Oliver’s total expenses on goods, services, and labor.
4. How Oliver’s Affects the Local Economy
Data provided by Oliver’s for its 2024 calendar year financial outcomes and purchasing behavior suggest that 32.3 percent of its goods were purchased from local vendors. For comparison, we assume national-chain stores in Sonoma County purchase 15.2 percent of their goods locally based on regional data and national-level studies3. We assume that local hiring patterns and wages paid are similar to those of Oliver’s for national-chain grocers, except for some jobs at national grocery/retailer chains in central operations, not in Sonoma County. We assume that 19.1 percent of sales at Oliver’s 3 This estimation is a blend of leakage data from IMPLAN® (2023) and IBIS World (Report 44511, Supermarkets and Grocery Stores in the US, 2024)
7 are paid as wages to local residents, compared to 16.6 percent at national chains. We presume Oliver’s profits are distributed within Sonoma County based on its worker-owned model, and no profits are distributed locally from the national chain.4 To be conservative, we assume that payments to local service vendors are the same percentage of sales as those of Oliver’s for similar square footage of grocery spaces at national-chain locations in Sonoma County. There are four ways to affect the local economy from grocer revenues:
(1) Local purchases of goods sold (transforming COGS into local business incomes); (2) Local wages and salaries based on workers living in Sonoma County (creating disposable income for workers to spend in Sonoma County);
(3) Local payments and business incomes for operational costs otherwise: vendor payments for services, e.g., legal, accounting, HVAC, etc.;
(4) Profits for owners that augment incomes for Sonoma County households beyond wages paid.
Going Local as a Grocer/Retailer: Details
We now show details and comparisons of Oliver’s difference in Sonoma County. Table 1 shows the amount of Oliver’s 2024 sales dedicated to local producers (in Sonoma County), local workers, and earnings retained locally from the total sales for Oliver’s Market.
Table 1: Purchases from Local Producers, Wages and Retained Earnings, Oliver’s Markets, 2024 Compared to 2019
Locally Sourced Goods, Workers,
and Retained Earnings for Worker/Owners
Totals
2024
Totals
2019
Deli $14,711,000 $9,904,500
Natural Grocery $4,886,000 $5,039,800
Spirits/Wine/Beer $4,824,800 $4,594,900
Meat $5,580,200 $4,195,700
General Grocery $4,611,800 $3,748,200
Bakery $4,819,900 $2,737,300
Produce and Other Items Sourced Locally $3,462,700 $840,000 Wages + Retained Earnings $60,915,200 $54,525,200
Total Local $103,811,600 $85,585,600
Table 1 shows growth in foundational support for Sonoma County businesses (21.3 percent growth in the dollar volume of local buying since 2019). The process described in Figures 1 to 3 above creates 4 While it is likely some residents of Sonoma County hold national-chain grocer ownership shares in their investment portfolios, the total amount of annual cash flow (dividend payments) to those stockholders is likely miniscule compared to Oliver’s distributed profits to Sonoma County residents. 8 gains for Sonoma County, shown in Tables 2 through 4: direct impacts create those ripple effects (indirect and induced impacts) on other businesses and workers. This amount begins our analysis of how Oliver’s makes a difference in Sonoma County. Estimated economic impacts from just the local purchases made at Oliver’s, as shown in Table 2 (these data connect to Tables 8a and 8b on how local purchases become how Oliver’s shoppers support local businesses).
Table 2: Local Purchase Impacts on Business Revenues Created/Sustained by Oliver’s Industry Direct Indirect Induced
Total Local
Oliver’s
Oliver’s Stores and Other Grocery $103,811,600 $4,100 $1,116,100 $104,931,800 Real Estate and Equipment Rental $0 $10,242,100 $1,667,300 $11,909,400 Rental Payments to Property Owners $0 $0 $8,955,800 $8,955,800 Hospitals $0 $0 $2,726,400 $2,726,400
Other local government enterprises $0 $1,067,300 $1,414,900 $2,482,200 Full-service restaurants $0 $312,800 $2,061,100 $2,373,900 Limited-service restaurants $0 $100,400 $1,675,600 $1,776,000 Management of companies and enterprises $0 $1,148,700 $611,800 $1,760,500 Banks and Credit Unions $0 $705,400 $897,900 $1,603,300 Employment services $0 $1,000,200 $586,000 $1,586,200
Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services $0 $1,109,800 $440,300 $1,550,100 Retail - Motor vehicle and parts dealers $0 $242,000 $1,170,700 $1,412,700 Insurance agencies $0 $873,200 $509,600 $1,382,800
All Others $0 $17,636,300 $30,483,100 $48,119,400
Totals $103,811,600 $34,442,300 $54,316,600 $192,570,500 Oliver's buying behavior consistently retains these gains for Sonoma County each year. Not only does Oliver’s hire locally (as other grocery chains do), but its larger use of local vendors also means more support for jobs at local businesses and, in turn, more general support throughout the local economy, as per the ideas in Figure 3. Table 3 shows that an additional 387 jobs are supported beyond the direct employment of 810 jobs at Oliver's in Sonoma County.
The overall impact of Oliver’s market operations generates $328.1 million in local impact, as shown in Figure 4 using the data in Table 2 and the additional impacts when total spending by Oliver’s Market is taken into account. Figure 4 shows the importance of local sourcing to the subsequent economic impacts overall. While local sourcing has a larger economic impact than not sourcing locally (compare Tables 2 and 5 in terms of the multiplier effect), other expenses at Oliver’s expands the total economic impacts to affect Sonoma County’s economy. Notice the $103.8 million and additional $88.7 million create a large part of the overall economic impacts Oliver’s Market generates. 9 Figure 4: Oliver’s Local Sourcing and Total Economic Impacts, Business Revenues Summary Oliver’s purchases also provide tax revenue for all levels of government. The state and local taxes generated, primarily from income, sales, and property taxes, are mainly due to retail sales and the ownership of homes and commercial spaces. Table 4 shows these data: for every $100 of revenue generated by Oliver’s buying and selling local goods, state and local taxes increase by $6.03. We assume that Oliver's retains a portion of its overall sales as margin for its owners; that value is assumed to be 8.0 percent of sales. Because Oliver’s is locally headquartered, its owners in Sonoma County retain these gains for reinvestment in Oliver’s business, maintenance of current spaces, and as additional income for owners. Table 4 includes Oliver’s taxable sales and subsequent sales taxes payable.
Table 3: Jobs Created/Sustained by Oliver’s Local Purchases Industry Direct Indirect Induced
Total
Oliver’s
Oliver’s Stores and Other Grocery 810 - 9 819
Real Estate and Equipment Rental - 22 8 30
Full-service restaurants - 1 19 20
Couriers and messengers - 8 2 10
Individual and family counseling services - - 8 8
Limited-service restaurants - - 16 16
Employment services - 4 2 6
Fast-Food and Takeaway Restaurants - 2 4 6
Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services - 4 2 6
Hospitals - - 9 9
Services to buildings - 4 1 5
Warehousing and storage - 4 - 4
Offices of physicians - - 7 7
All Others - 40 211 251
Totals 810 89 298 1,197
Local Sourcing,
$103,811,600
Local Sourcing
Impacts,
$88,758,900
Additional
Economic
Impacts,
$135,612,600
10 Table 4: Tax Revenues Created/Sustained by Oliver’s Local Purchases Tax Category Oliver’s
Employment Taxes $570,600
Sales taxes $11,390,400
Property Tax: Commercial $1,120,200
Property Tax: Residential $1,756,500
Personal Income $3,101,900
Other Taxes and Fees $1,861,700
Total State and Local Taxes $19,801,300
Estimating the potential effect of a similar retailer that is not locally-owned but sources some of its goods sold locally helps provide a perspective on how Oliver's reduces potential leakages versus a grocer/retailer that sources more goods sold outside Sonoma County. For Oliver’s, profits are also redistributed through philanthropy and reinvestment in local stores and communities. However, few non-local retailers buy as many locally-made products as Oliver’s; let’s look at the differences when local shoppers buy at a non-local grocer/retailer.
Buying Local from a Non-Local Retailer that Sources Fewer Goods Locally to Sell Tables 5, 6, and 7 show a similar analysis for a non-local grocer with only 15.2 percent of its cost of goods sold sourced locally. From the same total sales potentially retained locally by a non-local chain’s operations similar to Oliver’s, only $20.9 million additional business revenue is provided as local economic benefits (versus Oliver’s $103.4 million). The non-local grocer/retailer supports only 105 full-time equivalent workers beyond the same 810 at the grocer, versus 387 more supported by Olivers. Similarly, a local farmer, food, or goods distributor receives revenue for their goods based on Oliver’s sourcing. Workers, in turn, receive payments for their time from Oliver. Tables 6 and 7 show that providing local residents with jobs increases the multiplier effect of Oliver’s operations retained by the Sonoma County economy.
Tables 5 through 7 show a similar ripple effect, albeit with more minor economic impacts locally, due to reduced purchases of goods and non-local ownership. Table 5 illustrates the difference, with a smaller proportion of goods sold (15.2 percent) that are local purchases, which affects Sonoma County versus Oliver’s model, similar to the results shown in Table 2 for Oliver’s (summarized here). 11 Table 5: Local Purchase Impacts on Business Revenues, Non-Local Grocer/Retailer compared to Non-Locally Owned Grocer/Retailer with 15.2% Goods Locally Sourced versus 32.3% at Oliver’s, Similar Size as Oliver’s
Industry Direct Indirect Induced
Total
Non-Local
Owned, 15.2%
Local Sourced
Total
Oliver’s
(32.3% Local)
from Table 2
Other Grocery and Oliver’s Stores $48,852,500 $800 $202,700 $49,056,000 $104,931,800 Real Estate and Equipment Rental $- $1,860,300 $302,800 $2,163,100 $11,909,400 Rental Payments to Property Owners $- $- $1,626,600 $1,626,600 $8,955,800 Hospitals $- $- $495,200 $495,200 $2,726,400
Other local government enterprises $- $193,800 $257,000 $450,800 $2,482,200 Full-service restaurants $- $56,800 $374,300 $431,100 $2,373,900 Limited-service restaurants $- $18,300 $304,300 $322,600 $1,776,000 Management of companies and enterprises $- $208,600 $111,100 $319,700 $1,760,500 Banks and Credit Unions $- $128,100 $163,100 $291,200 $1,603,300 Employment services $- $181,700 $106,400 $288,100 $1,586,200 Accounting, bookkeeping, payroll services $- $201,600 $80,000 $281,600 $1,550,100 Retail - Motor vehicle and parts dealers $- $43,900 $212,700 $256,600 $1,412,700 Insurance agencies $- $158,600 $92,600 $251,200 $1,382,800 All Others $- $3,203,300 $5,536,700 $8,740,000 $48,119,400 Totals $48,852,500 $6,255,800 $9,865,500 $64,973,800 $192,570,500 In Table 7, the estimated state and local tax benefits are 137 percent more from Oliver’s operations than from the non-local grocer/retailer.
Table 6: Jobs Created/Sustained of Non-Locally Owned Grocer/Retailer with
15.2% Goods Locally Sourced versus 32.3% at Oliver’s, Similar Size as Oliver’s Industry Direct Indirect Induced
Total
Non-Local
Owned, 15.2%
Local Sourced
Total
Oliver’s
from
Table 3
Other Grocery and Oliver’s Stores 810 - 2 812 819
Real Estate and Equipment Rental - 10 2 12 30
Full-service restaurants - 1 4 5 20
Couriers and messengers - 4 1 5 10
Individual and family counseling services - - 4 4 8
Limited-service restaurants - - 3 3 16
Employment services - 2 1 3 6
Fast-Food and Takeaway Restaurants - 1 2 3 6
Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services - 2 1 3 6 Hospitals - - 2 2 9
Services to buildings - 2 - 2 5
Warehousing and storage - 2 - 2 4
Offices of physicians - - 2 2 7
All Others - 17 40 57 251
Totals 810 41 64 915 1,197
12 It is essential to recognize that the revenue and tax impacts are annual, recurring each year, as Oliver’s is in business versus non-local retailers and grows in volume in tandem with Oliver’s growth.
Table 7: Tax Revenue Impacts of Non-Locally Owned Grocer/Retailer with
15.2% Goods Locally Sourced versus 32.3% at Oliver’s, Similar Size as Oliver’s State and Local Taxes
Non-Local
Owned, 15.2%
Local Sourced
Oliver’s
from
Table 4
Employment Taxes $262,200 $570,600
Sales taxes $5,122,900 $11,390,400
Property Tax: Commercial $873,200 $1,120,200
Property Tax: Residential $4,800 $1,756,500
Personal Income $1,414,800 $3,101,900
Other Taxes and Fees $666,000 $1,861,700
Total State and Local Taxes $8,343,900 $19,801,300
5. Summary of the Oliver’s Difference
This study shows how Oliver’s makes a difference in its buying strategy. Combining local sourcing, employees, and ownership completes a virtuous circle of supporting the local economy as a grocer/retailer. For the consumer, purchasing goods at Oliver’s supports local businesses beyond Oliver’s, and more than a non-locally owned store, with hiring and sourcing principles similar to those of Oliver’s. Given regional and national supply chains, it is unlikely a non-local grocer/retailer would source as many goods from local producers as Oliver’s due to cost incentives.
Oliver’s sourcing-local philosophy drives significant differences in how Oliver’s supports the local economy versus other grocers. Going local makes a powerful economic difference compared to buying from non-local producers in Sonoma County. The difference between the 2019 and 2024 results comes from different proportions of local purchases from total sales revenue, different economic relationships among local industries, and how residents spend their incomes in the last five years in Sonoma County. Oliver’s regional purchasing behavior, combined with its worker/owner model, resulted in more income staying locally once earned and then being paid to its workers, owners, or vendors. Table 5 compares Oliver’s to a national-chain grocery store in terms of its local economic impacts and highlights the difference Oliver’s makes. Table 8a shows the lower “multiplier” levels when less income is retained locally.
13 Table 8a: Example: $100 of the same goods, Oliver’s vs Non-Local Grocer, Total Economic Impacts Current Dollars, Business Revenues Generated, 2024 Data Oliver’s Non-Locally Owned Grocery
Uses of Revenue
Total Local
Economic Impacts Uses of Revenue
Total Local
Economic Impacts
COGS = $60.60 $112.00 COGS = $60.60 $78.00
Wages = $19.10 $35.00 Wages = $19.10 $28.00
Other Operations = $12.30 $25.00 Other Operations = $12.30 $25.00 Profits = $8.00 $13.00 Profits = $8.00 $0.00
Total Value in Bag = $100.00 Total Added = $185.00 Total Value of Bag = $100 Total Added = $131.00 Note: These numbers are examples. Below, we look at Oliver’s data directly as a case of local economic support.
Table 8a shows that, for every $100 spent at Oliver’s versus a national chain grocer/retailer, using the assumptions above, buying from Oliver’s creates 39.5 percent more economic benefits for Sonoma County businesses. Table 8b compares Oliver’s when no goods are sourced locally by a national-chain grocer operating stores of similar size to Oliver’s in Sonoma County. The example in Table 8b is extreme but illustrates the power of local sourcing and the detriment of leakages when goods are not sourced locally, as a grocer/retailer. Under these new conditions of local-sourcing difference, $100 spent at Oliver’s creates 249% more impact than the national grocer that sources zero goods it sells from local businesses ($185.00 in Sonoma County impacts versus $53.00 based on leakages), resulting in $132 more per every $100 shopping bag of goods sold.
Table 8b: Example: $100 of the same goods, Oliver’s vs 100% Non-Local Grocer, Additional Business Revenues Generated, Current Dollars, 2024 Data Oliver’s Non-Locally Owned and Sourced Grocery
Uses of Revenue
Total Local
Economic Impacts Uses of Revenue
Additional Local
Economic Impacts
COGS = $60.60 $112.00 COGS = $60.60 $0.00
Wages = $19.10 $35.00 Wages = $19.10 $28.00
Other Operations = $12.30 $25.00 Other Operations = $12.30 $25.00 Profits = $8.00 $17.00 Profits = $8.00 $0.00
Total Value in Bag = $100.00 Total Added = $185.00 Total Value of Bag = $100 Total Added = $53.00 Net Leakages from $100 Bag Total = $0.00 Net Leakages from $100 Bag Total = -$49.00 14 References
Dunne, Jonnie B., Kimberlee J. Chambers, Katlyn J. Giombolini, and Sheridan A. Schlegel (2011) “What does ‘local’ mean in the grocery store? Multiplicity in food retailers' perspectives on sourcing and marketing local foods” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Volume 26, Issue 1, March 2011, pp. 46-59
Hicks, M., Weinstein, A., & Wornell, E. (2025). “Why have local economic development policies been so disappointing, and where do we go from here?” Reaching Regions, Volume 1, March 2025 IBIS World (2025) “Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US”, Report number 44511, https://www.ibisworld.com
Kloczko-Gajewska, Anna & Malak Rawlikowska, Agata & Wilkinson, Adam & Gorton, Matthew & Tocco, Barbara & Was, Adam & Monia, Saidi & Torok, Aron & Veneziani, Mario. (2023). “What are the economic impacts of short food supply chains? A local multiplier effect (LM3) evaluation.” European Urban and Regional Studies. Volume 31, Issue 3, July 2024, pp. 281–301 Printezis, Iryna and Carola Grebitus (2018) “Marketing Channels for Local Food”, Ecological Economics, Volume 152, October 2018, pp. 161-71
Data:
Oliver’s Markets provided data on Oliver’s operations from 2019 to 2024.
Data on non-local grocer sourcing provided by IMPLAN® (2025), http://www.implan.com. The economic impact model used for Sonoma County above is also from IMPLAN, accessible at http://app.implan.com.
Bureau of Economic Analysis or BEA (2023), http://www.bea.gov, provides source data for IMPLAN® through BEA’s RIMS model.