The Circular Economy

From data to decisions: getting more value from sustainability measurement

From February issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine The way manufacturers measure sustainability is changing rapidly. New tools, improved data and AI-enabled platforms mean businesses can now measure far more than they could a few years ago. Carbon, circularity, risk and supply chains — the list keeps growing. For manufacturers, this often shows up as long lists of metrics across plants, products and suppliers. Energy and fuel use on the factory floor, raw materials, packaging, transport and supplier emissions are all in scope. Without clear priorities, teams can spend months collecting data without clarity on what to act on first. Measuring everything is rarely practical, and it is not the goal. What matters is measuring the right things, at the right level of detail, to support decisions that reduce risk and create value. As Jeff Vickers, Technical Director at sustainability firm thinkstep-anz, puts it plainly: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” He also cautions that “we need to focus our efforts on measuring what matters most so that we don’t get lost in the detail.” Why focused measurement leads to better outcomes More data does not automatically mean better decisions. The real value comes from measuring what matters and using it well. A focused approach to measurement helps organisations: Keep priorities clear: A small set of meaningful metrics makes it easier to see what matters most and act with confidence. Put effort where it counts: Time and budget are spent on data that actually changes decisions, rather than information that sits unused. Protect credibility: Reported numbers are understood, can be explained and are clearly linked to actions being taken. Meet expectations: Measurement focuses on the issues regulators and investors care about most, reducing the risk of blind spots. This approach avoids the risks of over-measurement while strengthening insight, trust, and performance. […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

Beyond the roadmap: How Argus made people the engine of change

Adam Harvey, Business Performance Partner – Manufacturing, The Learning Wave Running operations today feels like living in two realities at once. On one hand, you know the plant has to modernise. The systems are creaking, customers want more for less, and digital tools promise the efficiency you need. On the other hand, you look around the floor and think: “My people aren’t ready for this.” That’s where we see so many transformations stall. The roadmap is clear, the tech is lined up, the investment made, but the people who have to use it don’t feel confident, don’t trust it, or don’t see why it matters. And then the numbers don’t move. Dashboards gather dust. Automation creates frustration. The new machine sits there like an expensive ornament. Argus chose a different path. One that not only delivered the transformation but unlocked double-digit lifts in productivity and quality along the way. Technology set the stage, people made it work After engaging LMAC to run a SIRI readiness survey, their plan was clear: invest in digital tools, shop-floor intelligence, automation, and smarter integration. Dsifer built the data backbone. Design Energy explored automation. The roadmap was solid, and the tools were lining up. The Board and GM believed in the vision, but crucially, they also believed that the only way this transformation would stick was if they first invested in their people. They knew that tech doesn’t run the factory, people do. Dashboards don’t drive performance if no one looks at them. Automation doesn’t add value if the team doesn’t trust it. New systems don’t solve problems if people are too nervous to use them. That’s why Argus called us. “We need you to work with our people and get them ready for this transformation.” We built people’s confidence so they trusted the […]

SouthMach 2025: Innovation, Excellence, and the Future Talent of New Zealand Manufacturing

From June issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz -Adam Sharman,CEO LMAC Group, APAC SouthMach 2025, held at Wolfbrook Arena in Christchurch from 28–29 May, once again proved to be the South Island’s premier event for the manufacturing and engineering sectors. With a strong focus on innovation, digital transformation, and workforce development, this year’s expo came at a pivotal time for New Zealand’s manufacturing industry—one that is navigating both significant challenges and emerging opportunities. The SouthMach expo is always an opportunity to showcase the innovation happening in New Zealand and this year’s event was no exception with a focus on South Island innovation through the AMA Innovation Zone led by Dawn Aerospace, Argus Manutech, ENI Engineering and Hamilton Jet and United Machinists. It was interesting to see how these organisations have practically leveraged industry 4.0 technologies in the New Zealand context to drive innovation and productivity through smart investment and a staged approach to adoption. The adoption of Industry 4.0 was a key theme of SouthMach this year and this was reinforced through the ASB Manufacturers Workshop, delivered by the EMA and LMAC. Participants on both days were exposed to a practical case study to build awareness of industry 4.0 in a New Zealand business and left with a roadmap of next steps for their own businesses. A Visionary Keynote: From Garage to Orbit One of the most inspiring moments of SouthMach 2025 came from Charlie North of Dawn Aerospace, during his keynote titled “From Garage to Orbit: A Manufacturing Story.” North shared the company’s remarkable journey from a backyard shed in New Zealand to becoming a global leader in spaceplane and in-space propulsion technology. His talk emphasised that true innovation in manufacturing isn’t about hype or heroics—it’s about people, process, and purpose. He called on New Zealand’s industrial sector to “aim high, build well, and back […]

Have you optimised your asset care strategy?

-Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon & Co NZ It’s great to see the recent government announcements allowing additional tax deduction for new assets, which will encourage business to invest in plants and equipment to help drive productivity. These are all a step in the right direction for making New Zealand’s manufacturing sector more competitive on a global stage. With that said, any investment should be reviewed in terms of the cost and benefit, and the overall business case for making it. When I worked in Japan the approach taken was to drive efficiency and productivity until you had exhausted the potential of your existing assets. The aim was to get the absolute maximum possible out of all the equipment and space available, and only then to invest in extra capacity. This led to a relentless focus on efficiency and debottlenecking to get the most reliable, most productive assets. I remember a conversation I had with a production manager at one of these Japanese plants. He explained to me how he disliked new equipment, as “the first day was the worst day”, and it got better after that. He preferred older equipment because “we know everything about it and how to run it highly efficiently”. This is interesting to compare with more ‘Western’ approaches where we assume that new equipment is at its best on its first day and then we depreciate it, because it’s deteriorating and will only perform worse from then! The difference is that the better performing factories don’t only invest in new capital when they need capacity (or to meet an innovation need); they invest in the total asset. This includes how it is commissioned, optimising it for its role, how it is run, how it’s maintained, care for its individual parts, how people are trained to operate […]

Remanufacturing 101: Reviving parts, reclaiming value

The remanufacturing market unlocks opportunity across sectors for higher margins, affordability, and supply chain resilience. Remanufacturing, the process of restoring used parts to give them a second life, has propelled into the spotlight in recent years by attempts to mitigate supply chain shortages, reach new customers through affordability, and search for high-margin alternatives for parts. Both independent remanufacturing companies and remanufacturing arms within OEMs have proved essential for efficiently restoring parts and creating a way to lower expenses while making operations more efficient. These players provide value across multiple industries, from the well-established space in the automotive sector to more emergent opportunities across sectors such as medical devices and electronics. All of these sectors can benefit from reduced dependence on raw materials, extended product life cycles, and more. But remanufacturing is an inherently complex process, and the industry faces unique challenges. For example, remanufacturers grapple with the unpredictable availability, quantity, and quality of incoming used parts (referred to as “core”), complex pricing due to the volume and long tail of SKUs, and a high volume of unstructured, text-based data generated by product warranty claims. What is remanufacturing? Remanufacturing is the process of restoring core to give it an entirely new life. The core, the starting point for the remanufacturing process, is typically a high-value part that requires technical expertise to be restored to its original function. Within the automotive and industrials industry, parts that can be remanufactured include engines, transmissions, hydraulic components (such as bucket lifters), and drivetrain components (such as clutches and axels), as well as turbochargers and superchargers. Historically, the automotive and industrial equipment industries have had the most use cases for remanufacturing, but a growing number of use cases are emerging in industries such as medical devices, furniture, electronics, and aircraft components. The remanufacturing process typically involves seven […]

1 2 3 4

News Ticker

The Circular Economy