Sustainability

The Year in Review – Business Exit Landscape

Mike Warmington, Platform 1 This year has been marked by fluctuations in the business exit landscape. The first quarter saw lots of activity and some deal flow. The middle two quarters saw business owners contemplating transitioning out, more likely to hold off as they endured a tougher sales environment putting the squeeze on their businesses. Our meeting numbers with business owners we had not previously met were significantly up on 2024, however this did not translate into as many engagements as we would normally expect from that level of activity. The market is experiencing record demand from individuals seeking business ownership or transition opportunities. Three Reserve Bank OCR cuts since August and lower interest rates made a noticeable positive difference ,along with increasingly positive business confidence survey results. We have found more business owners we spoke to during the year are only now prepared to either push the button on engagement now or indicate they will take action in early 2026. Having held off through COVID and the recent recession many owners are years behind in their exit planning or executing .In our opinion NZ faces the largest business ownership transition it has ever seen : Over 50% of New Zealand SME owners are aged 55 or older Over 40% of business owners plan to exit in the next 5 years Over 70% of business owners plan to exit in the next 10 years While exact numbers are assumptions, figures from a variety of other sources all quote essentially the same statistics.This demographic reality means thousands of businesses will change hands in the next decade creating both challenges and opportunities. Here’s what I’m seeing in the market: Management Buy-Ins are gaining awareness and traction – external talented entrepreneurial people transitioning in over time. Employee Ownership Models are emerging to keep businesses […]

Reflecting on 2025: Circularity, Sustainability and Transformation for Steel Manufacturing

Troy Coyle, CEO, HERA As 2025 draws to a close, it’s clear this has been a year of transformation and momentum for Aotearoa New Zealand’s steel manufacturing industry and for HERA. The national conversation around sustainability and circular design has matured significantly, with steel once again proving itself to be the rockstar of the circular economy. One of the biggest milestones for our sector was undoubtedly the announcement of the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) at New Zealand Steel. This long-anticipated investment represents a major step forward for domestic steelmaking, enabling the production of lower-carbon steel from locally recycled scrap. It’s a tangible example of how industry can decarbonise while strengthening regional manufacturing resilience. The EAF signals a new era where circularity, innovation, and sustainability sit at the core of our national manufacturing. At HERA, we’ve seen that growing interest in low-carbon and circular design first-hand. Our newly released update to “How to Specify Low Carbon Steel” guide, has rapidly become our most downloaded publication, reflecting the appetite among engineers, designers, and specifiers to make informed material choices that reduce embodied carbon. This surge in demand shows that Aotearoa New Zealand’s construction and manufacturing sectors are ready to move from ambition to action. Circularity goes beyond just lowering emissions. It’s about designing systems that keep materials in use for as long as possible and few materials perform better than steel in this regard. That’s why one of HERA’s proudest achievements in 2025 was launching our Low-Carbon Circular Design Guidance. This guidance provides a practical framework for designers and manufacturers to apply circular economy principles in real projects, helping to close the loop between design, fabrication, and reuse. It showed that >50% reductions in carbon emissions were readily achievable through clever design and material selection. This work has been further strengthened by our successful application for […]

What 2025 taught us about sustainability and resilience

By Barbara Nebel, CEO, thinkstep-anz In 2025 we saw something important: progress on sustainability continued, even as regulations shifted and economic conditions became challenging. For many organisations, sustainability has become central to resilience, competitiveness and long-term planning. Rather than slowing down, they took more confident steps to manage risk and prepare for the future. Climate disclosure: fewer rules, but the same risks One of the major changes this year was the government’s plan to reduce the number of businesses that need to report their climate-related risks and opportunities. This shift removes the pressure of mandatory disclose and allows businesses to take a more pragmatic approach. It also raised a fair question: if fewer organisations need to disclose, does that mean the financial impacts of a changing climate are becoming less relevant? At thinkstep-anz, we know the answer is no. Climate disclosure has always been more than a compliance task. For manufacturers and other businesses with complex supply chains, it is a practical tool for managing risk. Regulations may shift, but the physical and transition risks of climate change remain. Extreme weather, changing markets and new policies will continue to affect operations, logistics and access to materials. That is why we integrate climate risk and scenario analysis directly into clients’ risk management frameworks. When climate insights sit within existing decision-making processes, they guide investment, planning and strategic direction. After two years of supporting organisations on their disclosure journeys, we are seeing a clear shift: clients are not just reporting; they are preparing for the future with greater clarity and confidence. Scope 3 emissions: more time, better tools Changing regulations also brought more time for some organisations to measure and report their scope 3 supply chain emissions. For many, scope 3 includes the upstream materials they purchase and the downstream use […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

Age-Inclusive manufacturing: Passing the torch: Practical mentoring and knowledge sharing across generations

By Shyamini Szeko, 2025: Based on Master’s research into ageing and work in NZ manufacturing (AcademyEx) Why mentoring matters “I didn’t learn my job overnight.” – Team Leader, 33 years in manufacturing That sums it up. Experience can’t be replaced overnight. Older workers carry deep know-how, the kind that keeps production steady and safe. If that knowledge walks out the door at retirement, the business loses far more than a person. In most factories, mentoring already happens in small, informal ways, a tip shared on the line, a quick demo, a quiet correction. It works, but it’s fragile. Unless mentoring is built into the system, those lessons disappear fast. The knowledge gap My research found that most mentoring is informal and unrecorded. One manager put it bluntly: “We realise too late how much knowledge sits in people’s heads.” When experienced operators leave, the next person inherits the machine, but not the method. That’s a real productivity and safety risk. What works on the factory floor Younger workers bring energy, tech skills, and fresh ideas. Older workers bring judgment, craftsmanship, and context. When they work together, everyone benefits. Here are some practices NZ manufacturers are already testing: Buddy systems — pair new hires with experienced mentors. Quick video walk-throughs — capture how jobs are done for training libraries. Digital “how-to” hubs — store process tips and lessons learned. Small, structured actions like these help preserve know-how and grow confidence across generations. Turning goodwill Into good systems The challenge isn’t motivation — it’s structure. Mentoring can’t rely on good intentions alone. To make it stick: Schedule mentoring time as part of shifts, not extra work. Recognise mentors in performance reviews or training plans. Link mentoring to leadership and succession planning. When knowledge sharing is part of how work is organised, not an […]

1 2 3 4 ›»

News Ticker

Sustainability