NZ Productivity Organisation

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 […]

NZ needs more entrepreneurs. Will its new tertiary strategy reward real risk takers?

Rod McNaughton, Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau The government’s recently released Tertiary Education Strategy 2025–2030 signals a shift towards harnessing the sector to address New Zealand’s long-standing productivity issues. But the strategy and its goals aren’t necessarily aligned. Universities and polytechnics are now expected to promote innovation, accelerate commercialisation and build significantly stronger entrepreneurial capabilities. Measuring those things will be the challenge. The strategy identifies “particular gaps in market-driven entrepreneurial skills” and instructs universities to expand entrepreneurial education, especially for graduate researchers. It also acknowledges that more people will build careers through self-employment, freelancing or portfolio work. In parallel, a new national intellectual property policy gives academic staff the first right to commercialise government-funded research, signalling a stronger expectation that universities will generate new ventures and technologies. The country wants more innovators, founders and risk-takers. Yet several elements of the strategy, especially the way performance may be assessed, risk unintentionally discouraging the very entrepreneurial pathways it aims to promote. The wrong metrics? Graduate earnings are one example. Early-career income is widely used internationally as a marker of labour-market relevance, and the strategy treats it as a key success measure. But entrepreneurship rarely begins with high or stable income. Founders typically experience several years of irregular or low earnings before ventures become viable. When systems use earnings as a key indicator, the fear is universities will shift focus toward producing graduates for established, well-paid sectors, and away from entrepreneurial endeavours. But earnings are only one of several tensions. The strategy’s strong emphasis on labour-market alignment, employer co-design and responsiveness to current skill shortages can tilt institutions toward preparing graduates for today’s jobs rather than tomorrow’s industries. Many entrepreneurial opportunities emerge in sectors too new to appear in occupational forecasts, from synthetic biology and climate technologies to AI and autonomous systems. […]

Material passports for construction: Why I see them less as banks… and more as donor registries

From December NZ Manufacturer -Troy Coyle,CEO,HERA Across the infrastructure and construction sectors, material passports are emerging as a promising tool for enabling circularity. They’re often described as a “bank of materials,” and I understand why (in fact HERA even describes them this way). After all, they catalogue the materials embedded within a building so they can be withdrawn at the end of life and reused elsewhere. The more I’ve worked with the concept, the more I’ve found that the banking analogy falls short. In fact, my own conceptualisation has shifted quite significantly: I now see material passports as closer in spirit to a donor organ registry than to a passport or financial ledger. This is because for reuse to work in construction, it’s not enough to know what materials exist. We also need to understand which components are actually compatible with which future projects- this makes it much like donors and recipients in medical systems. This compatibility challenge is where I believe the next evolution of thinking must occur. Why the “Material Bank” analogy isn’t enough Material passports are often framed as banks because they identify valuable materials for future “withdrawal.” The logic is sound: buildings act as repositories of steel, timber, concrete elements, glass, fixtures, and systems that shouldn’t be lost to landfill or downcycling. However, in a bank, all currency of the same denomination is interchangeable. One dollar equals another dollar. Construction materials are not interchangeable in this way. Two steel beams of the same nominal specification may have vastly different histories, including different loading conditions, different environments, different coatings, different compliance requirements. Their future use potential can vary dramatically. This is where the financial metaphor starts to break down for me. Why I think the organ donor registry analogy fits better In my view, material passports need […]

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 […]

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 […]

1 2 3 4 ›»

News Ticker

NZ Productivity Organisation