doug

On the eve of the introduction of the new Health and Safety at Work Act (Monday, April 4), how different will it be for employers and employees turning up to work tomorrow? EMA says most of its members should find that little will change overnight, but what will change over time will be the move to proactively mitigate health and safety risks which impact businesses. “We have worked constantly with our members, the regulator and government officials on this new legislation, to ensure we move away from a compliance-only model to one of active engagement in this space,” says Paul Jarvie, Employment Relations and Safety Manager, EMA. “Yes, there are changes – but this is not about catching employers out, rather it’s about good business. A safe and healthy workforce is more efficient and productive. Which is why it is heartening to see WorkSafe taking a modern approach as a regulator to engage, empower, educate and lead, before having to prosecute,” he says. The main areas of difference are around director responsibilities, the place of business and employee engagement. At a governance level, directors, chief executive officers and board members will need to be comfortable and have confidence that all is well in the health and safety space – and require positive inquiry. “We know that this has become increasingly important for our members, with 75% of respondents to our most recent Employers Survey saying board members were actively involved and understood their requirements under the new Act,” says Mr Jarvie. For businesses (person conducting a business or undertaking, PCBU) the new legislative framework is about ensuring there are robust systems in place. “It’s like having an engine, and ensuring that it’s well maintained, oiled and running smoothly and fit for purpose,” he says. “This is about identifying the small […]

China has just announced that last year, for the first time since it began opening up its economy to the world at the end of the 1970s, exports declined on an annual basis. And that is not all; in value terms, global trade declined in 2015. The obvious question is why. While global trade also fell in 2009, the explanation was obvious: The world was experiencing a sharp contraction in GDP at the time. Last year, however, the world economy grew by a respectable 3%. Moreover, trade barriers have not risen significantly anywhere, and transport costs are falling, owing to the sharp decline in oil prices. Tellingly, the so-called Baltic Dry Index, which measures the cost of chartering the large ships that carry most long-distance trade, has fallen to an all-time low. This indicates that markets do not expect a recovery, meaning that the data from 2015 could herald a new age of slowing trade. The obvious conclusion is that the once-irresistible forces of globalisation are losing steam. The situation in China is telling. In recent decades, as it became the world’s leading trading economy, China transformed the global trading system. Now the value of both imports and exports have fallen, though the former have declined more, owing to the collapse of global commodity prices. In fact, commodity prices are the key to understanding trade trends over the last few decades. When they were high, they drove increased trade – to the point that the share of trade to GDP rose – fuelling hype about the inevitable progress of globalization. But in 2012, commodity prices began to fall, soon bringing trade down with them. Assume that one ton of steel and ten barrels of oil are needed to produce one car. In 2002-2003, that bundle of raw materials was worth around […]

The latest New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA) Survey of Business Conditions completed during February 2016, shows total sales in January 2016 decreased 18.58% (year on year export sales decreased by 25.06% with domestic sales decreasing 1.45%) on January 2015. The NZMEA survey sample this month covered NZ$216m in annualised sales, with an export content of 67%. Net confidence fell to 12, down from 18 in December. The current performance index (a combination of profitability and cash flow) is at 99.3, down from 101 last month, the change index (capacity utilisation, staff levels, orders and inventories) was at 97, down from 100 in the last survey, and the forecast index (investment, sales, profitability and staff) is at 102.83, down on the last result of 107.83.  Anything over 100 indicates expansion. Constraints reported were 59% markets, 24% skilled staff, and 18% production capacity. There was no net change in productivity for January. Staff numbers for January increased 2.07% year on year. Tradespersons, supervisors, managers, and professional/scientists reported a moderate shortage and operators/labourers reported a minor shortage. “There appears to be some struggles showing for manufacturers in terms of export demand, with year-on-year export sales staying negative for four months.  This is likely reflecting a continuing uncertain international environment and a number of soft export markets dampening demand.  Domestic sales were slightly down, after positive year-on-year increases the last two months.” says NZMEA Chief Executive Dieter Adam. “In recent months, despite some challenges in export markets and international conditions, confidence and indexes of performance, forecast and change, have been showing positive expectations of the future.  However, January results showed the performance index, which includes profitability, cashflow and exchange rate, as well as the change indexes, moving down into contraction.  The forecast measure, which has been exceptionally positive in recent months, moved […]