Editorial

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 […]

The tough year that was 2025

From December issue of NZ Manufacturer www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz The Year That Was -Sean Doherty 2025 was a brutal year for most New Zealand manufacturers, with many focused on staying afloat rather than growing. Rising costs for electricity, gas, labour, and raw materials squeezed margins across almost every subsector. Official data shows manufacturing employment fell by 2.6% meaning around 6,300 jobs were lost in just 12 months. The pain was felt from the factory floor to senior leaders, with many firms freezing hiring, cutting shifts, or closing lines to survive. Primary processing feeling the strain New Zealand’s traditional strengths in meat, timber, and dairy processing were not enough to shield the manufacturing sector from mounting cost pressures. Even large, historically resilient processors were forced to seek offshore funding and recapitalisation to keep plants running. These moves reflect a deeper reality: high input costs and intense international competition are eroding the ability of local processors to reinvest in plant, technology, and people at the pace required to stay globally competitive. Construction-linked manufacturing hit hard Manufacturers tied to the domestic building and construction sector took the a big hit in 2025. As the pipeline of new housing and commercial projects shrank, demand for building-related products dropped sharply. Several major timber mills closed, leading to hundreds of job losses. While high electricity and operating costs were part of the story, the real challenge was a combination of a weaker local construction pipeline and new international competitors, which made large, capital-intensive investments in New Zealand mills increasingly hard to justify. Ownership changes: selling to survive The need for capital and stability drove some of the most significant ownership changes the sector has seen in decades. Farmer-shareholders at Alliance Group voted to sell a 65% majority stake to Ireland’s Dawn Meats for $270 million, ending 77 years […]

Lifting Productivity from the Ground Up

How project engineering keeps NZ manufacturing efficient, safe, and moving Caliber Design, Christchurch Productivity is one of the most talked-about issues in New Zealand manufacturing. We all want to do more with less: more output with fewer delays, more progress with leaner teams, and more innovation with limited budgets. Yet productivity is not only about machines or technology. It is just as much about how projects are delivered. Every year, manufacturers invest millions in upgrades, automation, and plant improvements. Whether those projects add real productivity depends on one thing: how well design transitions to delivery. That is where project engineering makes a quiet but measurable difference. Planning that prevents waste Every successful project needs more planning than just a timeline. A good project engineer will identify risks early, validate the scope and technical deliverables, and plan sequencing so that the right work happens in the right order. We saw this recently on a multi-site upgrade where the factory could not afford any unplanned downtime. By mapping out isolations, access, and parallel work streams, the project engineer saved two weeks on installation and avoided a costly mid-project rework. These savings rarely show up as headlines, but they result in less time lost to rework, fewer hours spent chasing decisions, and smoother commissioning. Coordination that keeps people productive Even the best design will stall without good coordination. Modern manufacturing projects bring together multiple suppliers, contractors, and compliance demands. Someone has to keep the stakeholders all aligned on the actual deliverables for successful execution. On a large materials-handling project, one of our project engineers managed more than 20 subcontractors. Rather than reacting to site issues, they held short daily stand-ups with each trade, resolved bottlenecks on the spot, and kept everyone working to a clear, shared schedule. The project finished ahead of plan […]

Wired for success: Re-engineering apprenticeships to power New Zealand’s workforce

Toni Christie, Competenz General Manager, Employer and Learner Experience. A strengthened apprenticeship support system is driving higher completion rates across engineering and manufacturing — helping New Zealand build the skilled workforce it needs. Toni Christie explains how industry training organisation Competenz redesigned their apprentice learning experience to give every one of their learners the tools – and confidence – to finish what they start. In the three years since COVID-19, Māori credit achievement in mechanical engineering apprenticeships has surged from 49 percent to 72 percent, while Pasifika learners have lifted from 45 percent to 64 percent. For decades, Māori and Pasifika apprentices were among the least likely to complete their training. Now, in some of New Zealand’s most technically demanding industries, they’re leading the way. These outcomes prove that when learner support is reimagined, equity is not only possible – it’s measurable. A few years ago, too many apprentices were falling through the cracks. They arrived to on-job-training with potential but little guidance – like trying to start an engine with half the wiring missing. In 2019, a review of the New Zealand Certificate in Mechanical Engineering revealed that 42 percent of first-year learners were inactive, meaning they weren’t making enough progress within a defined period. Many were under 25, struggling with self-directed study or the literacy and numeracy skills their training required. By 2024, only 42 percent of new learners entered training above the national benchmark for literacy and numeracy – down from 70 percent just two years earlier. In other words, most apprentices now need extra support simply to get started. Many of our apprentices arrive with talent and ambition, but the system alone wasn’t giving them the tools to succeed. We needed to design a framework that met apprentices and trainees where they were. That framework, introduced in 2021 […]

Make your emissions data stand up to scrutiny

Starting out with your first carbon footprint, or refining years of data? Either way, the credibility of your greenhouse-gas (GHG) numbers matters. Reliable, verified information builds trust with customers, regulators and supply-chain partners – and helps you make confident decisions. Here’s how to find the right type of independent check for your business. Why independent checks matter Independent reviews give confidence that your figures are robust and transparent. For manufacturers, they can reveal data gaps in energy use, fuel consumption or process emissions; reduce the risk of overstated “carbon-neutral” claims; and strengthen credibility with clients, boards and export markets. A third-party perspective adds objectivity and helps demonstrate integrity – especially useful when bidding for contracts or supplying international brands that ask for evidence of sustainability performance. Choosing the right GHG evaluation approach Term Use for: What is reviewed (include timeframe) Outcome Verification Public reporting or disclosure where independent checks are required. Credibility for boards, investors, or regulators. Historical GHG data, calculation methods, and processes. Timeframe: Past or current reporting period. Independent statement of assurance – limited (regulatory) or reasonable (investor-grade). Validation Setting or updating emissions reduction targets. Testing future assumptions or pathways. Assumptions, models, and methods for projections. Timeframe: Future targets or scenarios. Opinion on whether your approach and assumptions are sound and achievable. External review Independent feedback before verification or disclosure. Checking inventory or scope 3 estimates. Data, methods, and reporting approach. Timeframe: Past or current data. Informal feedback to improve quality; no formal assurance. Assurance Building confidence in verified data for regulated or investor reporting. Choosing limited or reasonable assurance. Verified historical information. Timeframe: Past reporting period. Formal statement confirming confidence level in verified data. Certification Claiming carbon neutrality or joining programmes (e.g. Toitū, Ekos, Climate Active). Public recognition of verified results. Verified data, reduction plans, and […]

Q & A: Paul Durose, Logik Freight & Logistics Head of Operations

How is business? The NZ business environment is currently very challenging with a noticeable downturn in import/export activity, meaning that Logik Freight & Logistics have had to make some difficult decisions in order to navigate through this period. Which systems do your company use for efficiencies of scale? We use Wiise Business Dynamics, Xero Accounting Software, Windows 365. When did LFL start using them? We started using Wiise Business Dynamics on a Live basis from April 2025. We have been using Xero and Microsoft 365 since August 2024. Describe the benefits to date Using Wiise Business Dynamics has enabled LFL to synergize inbound, storage and order fulfillment outbound activities to achieve the same level of output with less (1 FTE) human resources being required, as well as being able to produce rigorous reports from which the monthly invoices are generated from. The team now do location-based picking on a daily basis, which significantly reduces the time spent looking for stock, as the system takes the picker to the shelf where the stock is located, as opposed to the picker having to pick from memory. Where do you see areas of growth for LFL? Our target market is the e-commerce space, where small companies that cannot afford their own warehousing space make sales through systems like Shopify with the orders flowing directly into Wiise Business Dynamics where they will be processed on behalf of our customer. How will technology assist with this growth? Wiise already has standard API’s with key trading platforms such as Shopify that will then create the necessary access point for LFL’s new customers to send their order data through. Once each new customer’s data comes through to Wiise, they will be managed in exactly the same way as all existing customers, no additional training for the LFL […]

Are you a Leader or a Liability?

Why the best leaders focus on replacing themselves At the core of New Zealand’s productivity problems is a leadership opportunity. We have no shortage of smart people, but they are trapped working in their businesses instead of growing their teams and the people who can run them. David Altena (above) is Head of Growth & Partnerships at SmartSpace.ai & Co-Founder & Host if The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions (Left)Rob Bull is Director of the New Zealand Lean Academy rob@nzla.nz How many times do you see it? That brilliant person in the team, they’re great at their job and getting promoted, then suddenly they’re leading the people who now do that job. It’s meant as a reward for their individual performance and talent, but we rarely go on to and teach them leadership. We’re great at recognising ability, but terrible at growing it. Instead of building leaders, we hand over the title and hope they’ll figure it out. We’ve systemised and streamlined and talk about stepping out of the daily grind; but here’s what’s preventing your business getting to the next level. If you’re the only one driving performance, you’re a liability not a leader This is especially the case if you expect everyone to think and act exactly like you. “Just do it the way I showed you” isn’t leadership, it’s replication. Innovation in how we lead is what’s missing. Leadership maturity isn’t when everything runs without you, it’s when the people you’ve developed are running it better than you. Good leaders hold the line. Great leaders raise it. Too many Kiwi businesses are full of good managers who keep things ticking over. They meet targets, run a tight ship and solve problems quickly. But that’s not leadership, that’s maintenance. The great ones don’t hold the line. They raise […]

Management Buy-In vs Management Buy-Out

Not all exit options are right for your business. A Management By-In or Buy-Out could be an attractive option worth evaluating. -Mike Warmington, Platform 1 Many people know about a Management Buy-Out when a person or team within your business becomes your exit option, generally over time. A Management Buy-In is less understood. This is where an external person comes into your business while you transition out over time. An internal person or team can be a great option, after all they are a known quantity and are loyal trusted employees. However in many cases if your business does not have experienced senior leadership, it may be difficult to do. It’s not enough for you to just like them. Why is This ? We often hear a business owner say that “John” my Operations Manager will be my successor whilst the owner has never had a serious conversation about it with John. If John, while knowing the owner is nearing retirement has never brought it up either, then he may not be entrepreneurial. Not all people are entrepreneurial or leaders or have capital available. Someone taking over from you needs to have : Capability Capital Compatibility This person or team needs to tick all of the 3 C’s. The success of your business and your legacy depends on this. So What is a Management Buy-In and How Can it Work ? There are people actively in the market looking for a way to get into business ownership through working with an existing owner. The fact that they can leverage off the owners experience and knowledge is attractive to them. They won’t cost you any more than a salaried GM but will come with significantly more horsepower to grow your wealth. Because they will gradually buy into your business they won’t […]

Manufacturing’s safety shift is progress worth protecting

By EMA Manager of Employment Relations & Safety Paul Jarvie. Manufacturing accounted for 29,224 injury claims in 2024. It was one of the industries with the highest incidence rates of work-related claims last year. Statistics like this underline the sector’s long and tortuous health and safety journey. But insights from the 2025 Workforce Insights Programme tell a story worth celebrating. Released in late October, it outlines a sector that’s maturing, learning and adapting. While we still have work to do, manufacturing is quietly becoming a safer, smarter industry. In fact, the data confirm that health and safety culture in manufacturing has moved from compliance to commitment. The report found that 86% of manufacturers made changes to improve workplace safety in the past year. More than two-thirds of employers now rate themselves as having a high maturity level in understanding health and safety responsibilities, and almost three-quarters believe they fully understand the risks their people face on the job. We’re seeing what leadership looks like when it’s genuine. In manufacturing, 95% of employers encourage staff to speak up about safety, and three-quarters regularly discuss health and safety matters through toolbox talks, team meetings and health and safety representatives. Worker satisfaction with employer responses has jumped to 80%, up from 73% last year. That’s a sign of trust in the workplace, and trust is what keeps people honest about risk. The report also highlights strong activity in tackling known risks, ones that have historically driven high injury rates. Musculoskeletal disorders (sprains, strains, and repetitive injuries) remain the most common form of harm in manufacturing. But, encouragingly, 91% of manufacturers now train staff in safe manual handling, 54% vary work tasks to reduce repetition, and 45% provide lifting aids. That’s a significant investment in people’s long-term health. Once a weak spot, machine guarding […]

«‹ 3 4 5 6 ›»

News Ticker

Editorial