Editorial

A year of supporting innovation, safety and export growth

By EMA Head of Membership, Export and Manufacturing Simon Devoy It’s not news that New Zealand’s economy remains heavily reliant on commodity-based exports. Yet the country is steadily carving out a reputation for high‑tech, high‑value manufacturing. While we’re known globally for milk powder, meat and timber, we are increasingly competing across advanced sectors, including aerospace, agritech, medical devices and precision engineering. The ambition is to be seen as an innovation nation, but there are significant challenges that must be addressed. Throughout 2025, the EMA’s focus in the manufacturing sector has been on two linked priorities: reducing workplace harm and helping the sector modernise and become better connected so businesses can scale and export with confidence. Despite the sector’s strengths, stubborn rates of workplace injury continue to drag on productivity and impose high costs. In response, we partnered with ACC and data specialists Flock to launch the Manufacturing Safety Dashboard, an anonymised benchmarking tool that allows manufacturers to compare reported incidents across sub‑sectors and identify where to focus safety improvements. This tool converts raw accident data into actionable insight. It highlights where injuries cluster, identifies high-risk tasks, and demonstrates which businesses are making measurable progress. This approach moves safety conversations from awareness to actionable intelligence, and anonymised peer data provides a clear pathway for improvement rather than a spotlight on failure. The sector has also shown a strong appetite for peer-led guidance and practical tools that enable measurable improvement. To address this, we partnered with ASB to run the Manufacturers’ Workshop Series exploring the impact of Industry 4.0 technology on New Zealand manufacturing. These workshops offered a practical examination of automation, data integration, and digital technologies through interactive demonstrations, including digital twin simulations. This hands‑on approach enabled manufacturers with lower levels of automation to see the potential of technology to improve efficiency, safety […]

It won’t be the new machines that win in 2026. It will be the people running them

Adam Harvey, Business Performance Partner – Manufacturing, The Learning Wave What if next year looked different? Picture this: Same pressures. Same market conditions. But instead of starting 2026 already firefighting, you’re ahead of demand. Your people anticipate issues before they hit production. Technology accelerates performance instead of slowing it down. The morning meeting is about what you’re improving, not what you’re recovering from. That’s the position some manufacturers have put themselves in this year. And let’s be honest. They didn’t get there because 2025 was easy. This has been one of the toughest planning cycles in recent memory. Margin squeeze. Labour shortages. Compliance tightening. Digital expectations rising. Budgets dissected line by line just to keep the lights on and the line moving. But while most held back waiting for “the right moment”, the bold manufacturers, big and small, doubled down on capability. Not because it was part of a grand strategy. In some cases, because the same issues kept cropping up, and the old approach wasn’t working. Not because they had spare time. Because they knew they couldn’t afford to wait. We saw it everywhere: Lion invested in teams’ problem-solving capability and OEE improved Altus backed their leaders to own and solve problems and culture and collaboration lifted – this piece of work paid for itself 3X Tegel moved safety from reactive to proactive by growing rep capability Ashburton Meats and Kraft Heinz built their leaders ahead of operational change Tasman Tanning, Essity, AFFCO, George Weston Foods, Vitaco and Inghams built performance skills. Their frontline teams now act earlier, make better decisions, solve problems faster, reduce waste, and speak up when performance is at risk Buckleys continued building capability at every level Foot Science International, Baker Boys and Argus ManuTech prepared their teams for digital transformation They didn’t just […]

Reflecting on a year of New Zealand manufacturing

From The Year in Review, NZ Manufacturer magazine, December issue. By Hon Chris Penk, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing As 2025 draws to a close, it’s a good moment to reflect on a year of resilience and progress for New Zealand’s manufacturing sector. The year brought challenges, but there is much to celebrate, and I’m proud to represent a sector that spans so many different industries. Manufacturing is at the heart of our economy. It’s the petroleum processor in Taranaki, the wood miller in Rotorua, the food and beverage producer in Hastings, the metal fabricator in Hamilton, the chemical technician in New Plymouth, the machinery engineer in Christchurch, and the equipment assembler in Dunedin that we have to thank. The sector employs more than 220,000 people, generates roughly 8 percent of GDP, and accounts for 60 percent of our exports. Over the past year, export growth has been strong, reflecting the dedication and innovation of manufacturers across the country. One highlight for me was hosting the first Minister for Manufacturing Awards at SouthMACH in Christchurch in May, supported by Advanced Manufacturing Aotearoa. These awards celebrated leadership and creativity, with 38 entries narrowed to 16 finalists across four categories. It was a fantastic opportunity to recognise excellence and connect as an industry. More recently, I have been inspired by Kiwi manufacturers winning awards at regional, chamber, and national business events. Gallagher New Zealand Trade and Enterprise received the Supreme Award at the International Business Awards. RML Machinery in the Waikato, AROTEC Diagnostics Limited in the Hutt Valley, and United Machinists in Dunedin each earned top honours in their regions. These successes show how manufacturers are fueling regional prosperity, boosting our competitive edge, and showcasing worldclass expertise. Many parts of the sector are not standing still; they are growing and […]

The Argon Academy: Turning capability into competitive advantage

Scott Adams, Managing Principal, Argon & Co NZ In today’s manufacturing landscape, technology, automation, and efficiency are no longer enough. Your real competitive edge comes from your people — their capability, confidence, and ability to adapt, innovate, and perform. That’s where The Argon Academy stands apart. For more than 20 years, Argon & Co has worked alongside New Zealand and global organisations to lift performance by strengthening skills, embedding continuous improvement, and developing leaders who drive transformation from the inside out. The Academy exists because we saw a critical gap: too much training focuses on delivering content, not building capability. Most programmes are taught by facilitators — not practitioners who have actually led the change and delivered results. The Academy was built to change that. Our learning approach is different. Every programme is grounded in real-world experience from practitioners who have managed transformation, driven productivity gains, and delivered measurable business outcomes across sectors like food and beverage, packaging, industrial manufacturing, and logistics. This means your teams learn from people who’ve done the work — not just talked about it. Rather than providing off-the-shelf courses, The Academy partners with clients to co-design tailored, best-practice learning pathways that align directly with your operational goals. We build capability that sticks — embedding new skills, behaviours, and mindsets into the way people lead, collaborate, and perform every day. This practitioner-led approach transforms training from a cost into a strategic investment. It creates measurable uplift in productivity, safety, and employee engagement — turning learning into a sustained competitive advantage. As businesses face mounting pressure from digitisation, sustainability, and global competition, the need for a digitally capable, future-ready workforce has never been greater. Building that capability takes long-term investment, government and industry collaboration, and access to world-class learning solutions. Quick-fix training won’t get you there — […]

Two Factories, One Economy

NZ Manufacturer, December issue. How the Same Conditions Create Winners and Loser Christmas is almost here and for many it can’t come fast enough. Another year of holding on, fighting fires and telling ourselves we just need to wait for better times to arrive. Yet look across the industry and you’ll see something striking: the same tough conditions producing completely different outcomes. One manufacturer is crawling to the finish line; another is smashing targets and celebrating wins. The break ahead isn’t just an opportunity to rest, it’s a reset. David Altena is Head of Growth & Partnerships at SmartSpace.ai & C0-Founder & Host of The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions The biggest variable in 2026 won’t be the economy. It’ll be the mindset you choose over the holidays. Because when you strip away the noise, this year has made one truth impossible to ignore: the same conditions are producing entirely different results. Some firms have spent 2025 wrestling the economy like an anchor, while others have treated it like a headwind to lean into… uncomfortable, but navigable. That contrast is the real story. It tells us the gap between struggling and succeeding may not be the market at all, but the mindset leaders bring to it. Rob Bull is Director of The New Zealand Lean Academy. rob@nzla.nz This is where the tale of two manufacturers begins The phrase we heard so much last year, “Survive till ’25”, was the hope we were clinging to, but it quickly morphed into “Survive 25,” reflecting how many manufacturers feel worn down by another long, slow year. Stories of closures, liquidations and persistent pressure have reinforced the sense that the economy is dictating our destiny. It is easy to get swept into that narrative. Yet, if we look closer, we find a stark contrast, two […]

Controlling Ignition Sources through ORS

Chris Beh, Think Consulting Oxygen Reduction Systems (ORS) utilise a process to lower the atmospheric oxygen levels of 21% below the ignition threshold for the items stored in an area (e.g. below 14%) – a proactive, preventative fire protection system unlike fire suppression, such as sprinklers, which are reactive (i.e. initiate only when a fire event occurs). Typically, nitrogen is generated from ambient air using on-site pressure swing adsorption (PSA) units and introduced into the area to be protected. Uses for the technology has been in high-value occupancies where the use of traditional fire suppression technologies such as fire sprinklers is challenging due to space constraints and hydraulic design (e.g. for adequate pipe work), tight or congested storage, lack of established protection design methodologies, or need to avoid water or chemical residue damage. Globally, there are more than 500 installations of these systems with applications in high-bay and freezer/cold store warehouses, datacentres and museums and libraries where valuable artifacts need protection from fire without exposure to extinguishing agents. In New Zealand, the use of this technology has mainly been in high-bay, cold store warehouses with the popularity of the system slowly becoming recognised. Firms considering installing ORS should consider the following which may influence both the acceptance (such as insurer) and the requirements imposed on facilities utilising this technology, noting this list is not exhaustive. Design Undertake a risk-based design review of the system and process including operation, maintenance and health and safety. Ensure the operating oxygen level is correctly designed for the hazard class being stored. The protected area sealed and structurally suitable for maintaining reduced oxygen levels. The enclosure that contains the reduced oxygen environment is to be constructed of non-combustible material. This area is to maintain the oxygen design concentration for twelve hours with all operations shutdown […]

Higher speeds lower productivity: what the data shows crash delays really cost Auckland

Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Another morning, another crash on one of Auckland’s major roads. Traffic isn’t moving. Drivers sit in their cars rehearsing reasons for being late again. Radio hosts offer the usual advice: leave earlier and find an alternative route. It happens so often we barely notice anymore. But the costs add up fast, and they’re far bigger than a few delayed meetings. Auckland had 34,628 reported crashes between 2022 and 2025. The “road toll” conversation typically stops at the obvious costs: injuries, deaths, emergency response. But it misses a lot. A new analysis puts the true figure at NZ$9.23 billion over those three years (roughly 2% of Auckland’s $157 billion economy), including nearly $200 million that never enters the policy debate. Transport agencies already put dollar figures on crashes. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) uses official methodology covering the usual: medical bills, lost productivity, property damage and the statistical value of a life. One fatal crash amounts to $15.2 million. But buried in the technical reports is an additional cost category that most policy discussions ignore: network disruption. False economies Crashes on major roads hit more than just the people involved. Thousands of other drivers get caught in the delays that spread across the network. Traffic engineering consultancy Flow Transportation Specialists recently worked out these network delay costs for Auckland Transport for the first time. Using GPS travel time data and traffic counts, researchers tracked how crashes create congestion that extends far beyond the crash scene and persists long after vehicles are cleared. A multi-vehicle crash on Auckland’s motorway network generates between $1.4 million and $3.5 million in network delay costs. Even a serious crash on an arterial road can cost $26,000 to $37,000 in lost time across all affected road users. When applied across […]

2026: It’s Now or Never

From December issue, NZ Manufacturer – The Year in Review Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon & Co NZ We have finally seen the “green shoots” and those businesses still going can finally tick the survive (till) 2025 box. Confidence is on the up and activity is starting to move, what a ride! But what have we learned? Here are a few reflections from me. Traditional approaches to getting through the hard times are no longer enough. Many businesses tightened their belts, let people go, stopped all discretionary spending, travel etc. and didn’t make it. Waiting for things to get better is not a strategy. This is just giving your competitors, especially those overseas, a free pass. We can no longer rely on distance and separation for protection. NZ is easy to access and service from anywhere, if you think you are safe you may be deluding yourself. It is all about productivity. We must face into this reality, we can’t work harder or longer we already top this league, we must work differently and recognise the rest of the world is and has adapted, and so must we. There’s no avoiding it or waiting for government intervention. We have some core industries and capabilities which are world leading. Our dairy and tech sectors are world-leading, with aspirational companies. Let’s not be complacent; let’s push on and assert and grow these advantages. We have a window of opportunity. Carpe Diem. Now is the time, before the next global uncertainty. It is now or maybe never. Identify your strategic competitive advantage and actualise it? Need help? Seek it. We are brave and innovative, the pioneering spirit lives strong, we can do this. There are enough tall poppy killers out there, lets celebrate the go getters, the achievers, the adopters and the triers and […]

Through the mill: Tokoroa’s tough year was about much more than job losses

Fionna Hurd, Associate Professor, Marketing & International Business, Auckland University of Technology. Suzette Dyer, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, University of Waikato For Kinleith Mill, cycles of new owners, restructuring and retrenchment have been a fact of life since the 1980s. Each ownership change and downsizing has affected the mill’s workforce – and, inevitably, the Tokoroa community. In July this year, foreign-owned Oji Fibre Solutions closed the mill’s last paper machine, effectively stopping all manufacturing. Not long after, Carter Holt Harvey announced it was also shutting its Tokoroa plywood plant. The double impact and loss of 249 jobs was seen by many as simply the latest blow to a dying forestry company town. Elsewhere, the sale of Fonterra’s consumer brands and the closure of Carter Holt Harvey’s Nelson-Tasman sawmill seemed to underscore the fragility of New Zealand’s manufacturing base. These decisions were no doubt justified commercially: competing with international firms that enjoy cheaper production and larger consumer markets has become increasingly difficult. And, as ownership of major industrial facilities has shifted overseas, those making the decisions have become further removed from the local context – and from the communities that bear the consequences. But it hasn’t always been this way. Building the forestry industry was central to Aotearoa New Zealand’s postwar economic and employment strategies. As our research has shown, community identity and cohesion cannot be easily separated from that political and economic history. Life of a forestry town When the government issued its first pulp licence in 1943, it had two clear aims: to create jobs for returning servicemen after World War II, and to make use of the forests planted during the Depression-era work schemes of the 1930s. The establishment of the privately-owned Kinleith mill, and the development of Tokoroa, fitted neatly within these national priorities. The mill was entirely funded by private equity, common […]

Building psychologically safe, high-performance cultures: Why ISO 45003 matters for NZ manufacturing

From December issue, NZ Manufacturer www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz Theresa Grainger, General Manager, The Lean Hub Every manufacturing site I visit, whether it is a busy factory floor or a small specialised workshop, I believe has one universal truth and that is that people want to feel valued, supported, and safe to share their ideas and do meaningful work. This is where ISO 45003 adds real value, released in 2021 as the world’s first global standard dedicated to managing psychosocial risks and it has become increasingly relevant as organisations recognise that wellbeing and high performance go hand in hand. Building on the foundation established by ISO 45001, ISO 45003 extends workplace safety into an area many organisations still find challenging to define and measure: the mental, emotional, and social conditions of work. It provides guidance for creating environments where people can not only perform well but genuinely thrive. At its core, ISO 45003 is about both preventing harm and protecting workers from psychosocial risks before they escalate. It encourages organisations to take a proactive approach, identifying early warning signs and addressing the root causes of stress or conflict, and designing work environments that reduce the likelihood of harm. The standard offers not just compliance guidance, but a roadmap for building resilient, high-performing and people-centric operations. Personally, this is where it really resonates for me, I love what it represents because it speaks to something I have witnessed again and again in my work: when we design workplaces around people, when we honour their wellbeing, their voices, and their value, the entire organisation lifts. It is also deeply aligned with the principles of Lean and Continuous Improvement, at its heart, Lean isn’t just about eliminating waste, it is about creating environments where people can collaborate openly, feel safe to speak up and bring their […]

‹ 1 2 3 4 ›»

News Ticker

Editorial