Editorial

EMA appoints John Fraser-Mackenzie as new Chief Executive

The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) has appointed John Fraser-Mackenzie as its new Chief Executive. EMA Board spokesperson David Welsh says the Board is delighted to have appointed someone of Fraser-Mackenzie’s calibre. “John brings significant senior leadership and commercial acumen to the EMA and has the experience we need as we continue to update our systems, processes and services to best support our members,” says Welsh. Fraser-Mackenzie has previously been Chief Financial Officer and Interim Chief Executive at Metro Performance Glass, Executive Director at Pacific Harvest Limited, Finance Director at Goodman Fielder, and Head of Finance Eastern Europe at HJ Heinz. During his time at Metro Performance Glass, Fraser-Mackenzie refocussed the business and oversaw an increase in revenue, implemented a new procurement structure and led strategic finance, investor relations and governance through a period of significant business growth. Fraser-Mackenzie says he is excited to have been appointed as the EMA’s new Chief Executive and is looking forward to taking up the role. “The EMA is New Zealand’s largest business association and has a long and proud history supporting businesses in the upper North Island,” says Fraser-Mackenzie. “It’s an honour to have been appointed the new Chief Executive and I am looking forward to getting started and helping build on the work done to date and strongly position the EMA to support and deliver the services businesses need.” Fraser-Mackenzie, who starts the role on 10 June, replaces Brett O’Riley, who is standing down after five and a half years as EMA Chief Executive. Welsh thanked O’Riley for his commitment and service to the EMA. “Brett successfully led the EMA through a period of significant change,” says Welsh. “The past five years have been some of the most challenging the Association has experienced, with a pandemic followed by a major economic downturn. […]

How about a ‘Blue Sky’ innovative vision for manufacturing in New Zealand?

From June issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine. Three weeks ago, Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese announced a $22.7 billion agenda for Future Made in Australia, to meet the challenges facing Australia, which require a big national response. Last week we had the NZ Budget and the prime announcement was tax reductions across the population. A noble effort but money that will continue to be gobbled up by inflation, insurance and vehicle registration increases and more…all applied by companies who know how to extract the last gold filling from the client. As a small economy we dont have lots of money to spare and we need to be smarter. The National Government is easing the puss, putting plasters on sores and trusting that through inflation reducing by the end of the year all will improve. However, we need something similar to Australia. A Future Made in NZ or Build the Future Together is purposeful. To improve the economy, conditions for workers, to cover the cost of living and incentives ( a decent salary, shares) and opportunities for our smart companies to sell their products overseas. We need smart, trained people to be rewarded for effort and not move to Australia. We need to keep on finding markets in this troubled and weird world we live in. We need a Business Council of successful, proactive people who can drive the country forward from their own life experiences and trials and tribulations. Aspirational business people who know ‘how to get there’. Using private and public sector money on projects that will truly make a difference for the better. A regular comment is that ‘if not as much money was invested in property, but into manufacturing, we would be a lot better off’.

By not mining vital minerals, NZ is ‘offshoring its own environmental footprint’ – is that fair?

Martin Brook, Associate Professor of Applied Geology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau When Resources Minister Shane Jones recently unveiled his draft strategy for mineral mining, it was quickly criticised by the Labour opposition as “taking New Zealand backwards”. One environmental group even called it a “love letter to mining companies”. But the government’s ambition to double the sector’s export value to NZ$2 billion by 2035, with flow-on effects for local employment and regional economies, deserves a broader debate. In particular, New Zealanders opposed to mineral mining must ask whether it is ethically fair and reasonable to effectively outsource the risks of mining to other countries, while benefiting from the modern technologies those minerals make possible. The government’s mining strategy aims to produce a list of “critical minerals” for exploration. The International Energy Agency identifies minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements as essential components in many of today’s rapidly growing clean energy technologies – from wind turbines and electricity networks to electric vehicles. Indeed, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, these critical minerals are increasingly necessary for decarbonising energy systems. One of the three pillars of the draft minerals strategy is the delivery of minerals “for a clean energy transition”. How we source those minerals is an important question. Mount Aspiring National Park: many New Zealanders resist the idea of mining in pristine wilderness areas. Getty Images Environmental impacts of mining New Zealand has a rich mining history, with a wide variety of resources still extracted from underground and opencast mines. There is also a long history of opposition to mining, especially in national parks and on conservation land, as well as on privately owned hill country. And there are legitimate concerns about the environmental, social and governance implications of mining. First, it can have devastating environmental effects, especially the extraction of high-value critical minerals that often require enormous “strip […]

Mulcahy Engineering and Epicor comment on EMEX 2024

How did you find EMEX 2024? Kayne Mulcahy, Managing Director, Mulcahy Engineering Graeme Evans, Regional Vice President (ANZ), Epicor Kayne Mulcahy, Managing Director, Mulcahy Engineering: This was our ninth time exhibiting at EMEX, with our first being back in 2007. It is always great to reconnect with existing and potentially new customers, suppliers and business partners directly. Having the opportunity to share knowledge and experiences with industry peers is also an invaluable outcome of the show. Graeme Evans, Regional Vice President (ANZ), Epicor: We support manufacturers across Australasia to optimise their end-to-end operations through enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions that deliver real-time intelligence. EMEX 2024 was a terrific opportunity for us and a wide variety of individuals and organisations to collaborate around the themes of engineering, manufacturing technology and electronics. As the largest trade show of its kind in New Zealand, it is integral for cultivating relationships and fostering a culture of innovation and growth, driving the entire sector forward. Was the energy positive, potential for sales? Mulcahy: There was a really positive energy amongst both exhibitors and attendees at this years show, which is pleasing considering the current economic conditions faced by many. A real sense that businesses are feeling that we may be past the bottom of the cycle and are looking forward to the climb back up to a more favourable trading environment. Evans: EMEX has now been in operation for more than 40 years – an incredible milestone. There were more than 200 exhibitors and an estimated 5,000 buyers in attendance. Naturally, there is always potential to drive sales at EMEX, but Epicor’s priority for the three-day event was to meet with our existing customers and establish new relationships with organisations that we can empower in the short and long term. How are you finding present […]

The Budget: More work to do

• A weaker economic backdrop has translated into a softer fiscal outlook, with a delay in the return to OBEGAL surpluses until 2027/28 and a higher profile for Crown debt. • Budget 2024 contained a fiscal policy pivot towards tax relief that was balanced by cutbacks in operational spending. The tax cut package was only modestly scaled back from earlier proposals. • Fiscal policy settings do not appear to be as contractionary and front loaded as in the December 2023 update. This will not be greeted fondly by the RBNZ, which is still battling to restrain domestically-generated inflation pressure. As was widely expected the Budget showed that the worsening economic outlook has delivered a fiscal hit. The return to an OBEGAL (Operating Balance before Gains and Losses) surplus will still be earmarked but not until 2027/28. Net core Crown debt is unlikely to fall below 40% of GDP by then. Gross government bond issuance over the 2024/28 period is expected to be $12bn higher than projected in the December 2023 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). Budget 2024 contained a fiscal policy pivot towards tax relief that was balanced by cutbacks in operational spending. The scale of the tax cuts was trimmed, but only modestly so. Moreover, the timing of the income tax cut package was only delayed by a month. The introduction of a tax cut package before spending cuts are instigated would not be helpful for the RBNZ which is desperately trying to rein in domestically-generated inflationary pressures. Moreover, the profile of the fiscal impulse suggests that fiscal policy was not as contractionary as the 2023 HYEFU, with the fiscal tightening occurring earlier. This will not be greeted fondly by the RBNZ. The risk is that OCR cuts we expect for early 2025 get pushed further […]

Further: Unleashed Manufacturing Performance Report Q1 2024, You Tube

To view the Unleashed Manufacturing Performance Report Q1 2024, presented by Greg Roughan of Unleashed Software, please visit the link:

Tightening purse strings hit NZ SME manufacturers

The recession is taking a bite out of New Zealand manufacturers’ sales revenue, according to new data from inventory management software brand, Unleashed. Unleashed’s first Manufacturing Health Index since New Zealand officially entered a recession found sales revenue dropped by 7% in the first quarter of this year, but is still up 18% year-on-year, aided by superb growth in the Energy, Medical Supplies, and Personal Care subsectors. The report looks behind the curtains of SME manufacturers in New Zealand, Australia, and the UK, across 12 subsectors. Unleashed head of product Jarrod Adam says high interest rates will continue to put downward pressure on firms, but the data shows the sector is able to respond positively to these headwinds. “The beginning of the year has been a speed bump for Kiwi manufacturers, but we need to keep in mind that overall revenue is actually up on the same period as last year. These companies are nothing if not dynamic, and in this current environment it is crucial to react to the cards you are dealt,” said Adam. “One really positive sign in the data is the much lower lead times, which will help these businesses be as productive as possible when conditions change for the better.” The report notes that firms have drastically improved their lead days to just 14 to begin the year, from 30 days in the final quarter of 2023, and 37 in the same quarter of last year. Lead time improvements are both a sign of normalising supply chains globally and the knock-on effect of New Zealand business’ laser focus on logistics over the past three years. Tough times continue for Food and Beverage At the pointy end of the disposable income problem, local Kiwi Food and Beverage producers have been confronted with difficult times with little reprieve on […]

The scope 3 ripple effect

-Insa Errey In the ever-evolving landscape of regulations, New Zealand manufactures find themselves connected to the regulatory frameworks of key trading partners such as the European Union (EU). The EU has positioned itself as a global leader in climate action, with ambitious targets set under the European Green Deal and the European Climate Law. As part of its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the EU has implemented regulations on Scope 3 emissions reporting through directives such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and the EU Taxonomy Regulation. Understanding the impacts of Scope 3 regulations in these markets is crucial for New Zealand manufacturing. Let’s delve into how regulations in the EU can shape the strategies and operations of New Zealand manufacturers. First, what is Scope 3? Scope 3 emissions refer to indirect greenhouse gas emissions that occur in the value chain of a company, including both upstream and downstream activities. These emissions often result from activities such as the production of purchased goods and services, transportation and distribution, and waste disposal. For any EU customer this may just be your manufacturing sites Scope 1 or 2 emissions. Meaning the emissions your site emits from use of direct combustion (scope 1) or indirect emissions on site from purchased electricity (scope 2). What does this mean for NZ manufacturers? Market Access and compliance pressure to adhere to these standards is required for exporting to the EU which governs Scope 3 emissions disclosure and reduction. Failure to meet these requirements can result in barriers to market entry. In a global market increasingly, prioritising emissions reduction is becoming an advantage, as exporters can face competition from countries with lower carbon footprints. Failure to manage or measure emissions can put NZ manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage and could impact market share. Even if you […]

Harm reduction to take centre stage at EMEX 2024

From May issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) says it will be using its presence at EMEX 2024 this month to promote the urgent need for manufacturers to work together to help improve the sector’s health and safety record. EMA Head of Advanced Manufacturing Jane Finlayson says that the manufacturing sector has one of the country’s highest rates of workplace injury and there has not been the improvement in workplace harm that has been seen in other sectors such as construction and primary industries. “Simply put, too many manufacturing workers are being harmed at work. In fact, you are twice as likely to be injured working in a manufacturing environment in New Zealand than you are in Australia, and the economic and social cost is too high,” says Jane. “Every year there are about 30,000 injuries in the manufacturing sector and ACC pays out $50 million for acute injuries resulting in more than 240,000 lost workdays. But it’s not just about the economic costs. Each injury can have an impact on an individual, a family, and a community, “It also has a huge business impact, affecting productivity and morale. No one wants to see an employee, or a colleague, injured or seriously hurt at work. “That is why we’ve launched Project Whakahaumaru with support from ACC. This project aims to bring the sector together to develop a five-year action plan to reduce harm and improve the health, safety, and wellness of everyone working in manufacturing. Jane says the team are looking forward to engaging with manufacturers at EMEX to hear their ideas and encourage them to get involved in the project and share their experiences. “We don’t pretend to have the answers. The reasons for the high rates of harm in manufacturing are complex and, to […]

Another great reason to understand your supply chain!

From May issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz Are you 100% sure you know what’s in your supply chain? Do you fully understand the work practices involved? Yes and yes? Then you’re in good shape to keep selling to the European Union when the new European Supply Chain Act takes effect. No and no? Then you’ve work to do! New EU legislation will require many suppliers to EU companies to better manage their social and environmental impacts. Here’s the acronym: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D). Even if you don’t trade with the EU, expect to see more focus on supply chains, right around the world. Why? Because supply chains are notorious sources of social and environmental ‘hotspots’. Wages below subsistence. Forced labour. Treacherous working conditions. Toxic chemicals. Polluted waterways. Deforestation. The list goes on. The draft European Supply Chain Act Read on for general information about the changes. What’s happening? The European Parliament has voted for the draft bill. Parties are now negotiating a common position to pass the bill into law. What’s the aim of the new law? It’s one we can all sign up to: a fairer, safer, more sustainable global economy. Who does the law cover? It covers many larger companies based in the EU. Some companies outside the EU are covered if their EU turnover is large. Small and medium-sized businesses are not directly affected. However, the law will affect them if they supply to larger companies. What does the law require? Affected companies must manage social and environmental impacts across their value chains. (This is currently voluntary.) These value chains include the companies’ direct suppliers (maybe your business?) and indirect suppliers too (your business’ suppliers?) The law is stricter than most existing national legislation. What does the law mean in practical […]

«‹ 7 8 9 10 ›»

News Ticker

Editorial