From June issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine.

How is business?

The business is in great shape and we’re genuinely optimistic about where we’re heading. In 2025, AoFrio’s revenue reached a record NZ$83.2 million, up 4.4% on the prior year with strong growth across our IoT business.

We expect full-year 2026 to exceed this, supported by the commercial launch of our flagship products SCS800 and AoFrio iQ, which open the door to meaningful growth in IoT and software across the US and European markets.

Part of what makes AoFrio a great company is the people on our team, and the relationship we have with customers. We have over 150 people in our organisation now, with around 100 of those in New Zealand.

The team is growing and we’ve managed to keep our staff engagement high. Our customer NPS scores are around +62 which is really high for our industry, and that comes down to the great people in the regions building strong relationships

Your blue-sky picture of future transformation must be a challenge that excites you?

It absolutely does. We built a respected business based on the manufacture of high-quality EC motors and controllers. That’s our heritage. But what we’re building toward now is something quite different: an AI-powered intelligence company. The foundation is already there.

We have almost a decade of data from 3.2 million connected devices in commercial beverage coolers, that competitors simply cannot replicate. What makes this genuinely exciting is that our hardware manufacturing heritage isn’t a constraint.

It’s the very reason we can credibly pursue this transformation. Helping build AoFrio into a great New Zealand technology company is something I find deeply motivating.

How long has AoFrio been a motor manufacturer?

We began manufacturing our own EC motors back in 2001 and launched the ECR2 in 2016. The company rebranded to AoFrio in September 2022, bringing more than 20 years of motor manufacturing history into its current form.

Motors and fans still play an important role in our business.

We continue to have great relationships with OEMs in the Cold Drink Equipment market, where our motors and fans are widely used in beverage coolers.

For example, we’re offering integrated solutions that combine motors with IoT and software, such as our AoFrio INSIDE bundle, which is proving attractive for many customers who want to enhance energy efficiency.

Transforming into a tech company is a real challenge. Can you explain?

Since 2017 we’ve been on a deliberate journey to become a hardware-enabled SaaS company. It’s required us to continuously add new capabilities while also shifting customer perceptions about the value we can offer, because our IoT and SaaS solutions essentially double the available market for us.

Having regional teams close to our customers has been central to making that work.

Over the last few years, we’ve been intentional about how we can set up our organisation for success and growth.

Part of that has been adopting new process and building out teams to improve the way we develop new products. It has been challenging, but we’re starting to see some great progress on that front.

Where do you see growth in the future?

In our core Cold Drink Equipment market, we’re defending our strong position in Latin America while expanding into the US, Europe, and APAC.

The long-term ambition is to hold 50% share of new-build beverage coolers in the US and 30% in Europe.

On the diversification side, we’re moving into adjacent food retail and ice cream commercial refrigeration segments.

We’ve already received a purchase order from a major global supermarket chain in South Latin America, with potential to roll out to 600 stores and a global network of 15,000 stores. Formal launch is planned for the second half of the year.

Can you tell readers about your growth phase?

The commercial refrigeration industry is at a genuine inflection point. For decades, coolers were essentially passive assets: expensive to run, hard to monitor, and costly to service.

The shift to connected, intelligent refrigeration is still in its early stages in many parts of the world, and the opportunity is significant.

There are significant challenges that IoT and AI-powered fleet management can solve, and the world’s biggest beverage and food retail brands are increasingly looking for trusted partners who can help them do that.

AoFrio is uniquely positioned to capture the demand for new connected cooler technology.

We have strong global market share of connected coolers in Latin America, which is an early adopter market, strong relationships in the sector, and more than nine years of operational data from 3.2 million connected devices.

That data is the foundation for the machine learning and AI capabilities that are increasingly central to what we offer.

We’re now moving into an accelerated growth phase, expanding our core cold drink equipment business into the US and Europe while diversifying into adjacent food retail and ice cream segments.

To fund this next stage, we’ve recently raised almost NZ$5 million in additional capital through a cornerstone investor, and we’re now undertaking a share placement and rights issue for existing shareholders to raise further capital.

Your global expansion sounds like quite a story. Want to share?

It really is. AoFrio is headquartered in New Zealand, but we now operate across six continents.

Latin America has been the foundation of that story. We hold 73% market share in South LATAM and 62% in North LATAM, and we’re proud of how we’ve built in the region.

NZTE has been instrumental in supporting that journey, and we’re now seen as one of New Zealand’s biggest digital exporters in the region.

Last year we also opened an innovation centre in Mexico as part of our commitment to the region.

From that base, we’re expanding outward. Our ambition is to grow US market share from 11% today to 50% by FY30, and to move from essentially zero presence in EMEA to 30% market share over the same period.

Those are bold targets, but they’re grounded in the relationships, the technology, and the data we’ve spent the last decade building.

Transformation using AI is probably keeping you up at night?

It’s more likely to keep me out of bed with excitement than lose sleep over it!

AI is accelerating the pace at which we can bring new things to market, changing what we can bring to market, and amplifying the benefit of things we already provide.

We’ve been using machine learning and algorithms to surface data insights in our products for a long time, and now AI is making that data exponentially more valuable.

Internally, AI is changing the way we work as well, particularly in our engineering, product and design teams. For example, our software developers are using AI to code faster, and validate and test ideas, which is really boosting productivity.

You can’t replicate human expertise, but AI can certainly accelerate and build on what people can achieve alone.

The post Q & A: Greg Balla, CEO, AoFrio appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

By EMA Head of Export and Manufacturing Simon Devoy

From supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions to tariff disputes and shifting trade alliances, business disruption seems to arrive from all angles, often with little warning.

For exporters and manufacturers, the challenge is constant. How should they respond? How should they prepare?

These are some of the issues Dr Alan Bollard has dealt with throughout his career and continues to examine today.

Ahead of his keynote appearance at the EMA’s Global X Summit on 15 September, EMA Head of Export and Manufacturing Simon Devoy, spoke with Dr Bollard about the forces reshaping global trade and what New Zealand exporters should be paying attention to.

After decades at the forefront of economic policy and international trade, Bollard is currently reflecting on a more confronting reality. He is writing a book titled Darkside Economics, which examines how economic tools can be used not just to grow economies, but to damage them.

“It’s about how to use economics to damage economies and how to defend yourself,” he says.

“It’s something that, 10 years ago, I wouldn’t have thought about. And it’s a bit of a sad reflection on what’s happening today.”

That observation goes to the heart of what is shaping the global economy right now. Trade is no longer only about efficiency and growth. It’s increasingly entangled with power politics, strategic competition and national security.

For Dr Bollard, any credible discussion about the outlook has to begin with geopolitics.

“When we talk about what’s happening in terms of trade policies, trade tensions and geopolitical tensions, that takes you straight into the US and China,” he says.

Europe still matters, but in his view it’s “a little bit less pressing” compared with the forces emanating from the world’s two largest economies.

Those forces are already reshaping global trade. China is going through significant internal adjustment while redirecting its export strategy and increasingly looking beyond the United States.

Much of that shift relates to Southeast Asia, a region Dr Bollard believes deserves far more attention from New Zealand exporters.

“With the changes going on, China has changed a lot of its focus and a lot of that relates to Southeast Asia as well,” he says.

Supply chains and production networks across ASEAN are being reshaped. Countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia are moving into more advanced manufacturing, while intra-regional trade is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Just as importantly, these economies are becoming wealthier, creating new consumer markets alongside their production capabilities.

There is also a strategic lesson in how these countries operate. “In a way, New Zealand can look to ASEAN countries for how to get on with the two big elephants in the room, the security one, the US, and the economic one, China,” he says.

At the same time, the global environment is being shaped by more immediate risks. Energy markets are a clear example. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are already creating ripple effects, particularly through petrochemical supply chains.

“There are fuel shortages right through the region,” Dr Bollard says. “And that’s only now starting to flow down through a whole bunch of sectors.

“If the Iranian oil embargo is still happening by September, we could be talking about global recession and how you get through that.”

Even a partial resolution would leave lasting effects on prices and supply chains. Energy also connects to a longer-term challenge exporters cannot ignore. The transition towards renewables is reshaping investment decisions. For New Zealand, this links directly to electricity generation, industrial energy use and the role of renewables in supporting export industries.

Overlaying that is the ongoing reality of climate change.

“Just because APEC isn’t allowed to talk about it, doesn’t mean it’s gone away. It’s got worse,” Dr Bollard says.

Questions around emissions, including in sectors such as dairy, remain unresolved and will continue to influence market access and consumer expectations.

There are also opportunities within this transition. Large-scale industrial policy, particularly in China, has significantly reduced the cost of technologies such as solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles.

Lower-cost technology can ease inflation pressures while opening new opportunities for adoption and export.

For New Zealand exporters, these changes sit alongside a more longstanding issue: how much value we create from what we sell.

Dr Bollard is direct in his assessment that New Zealand has not always made the most of its position. In some cases, we continue to rely heavily on exporting raw or lightly processed goods.

Other countries are capturing more of the upside. In dairy, for example, markets such as Singapore import New Zealand milk powder and generate significantly higher returns through processing, branding and distribution.

The broader lesson is that value is increasingly created through the likes of intellectual property, marketing and customer relationships.

That challenge is not limited to traditional industries. It also extends to emerging areas such as artificial intelligence.

Dr Bollard’s perspective reflects his policy background. Efforts are underway to create greater alignment on AI frameworks across economies, including work in APEC on AI documentation, certification and governance approaches.

Progress is uneven, with major powers taking different approaches to regulation. For businesses, the opportunity lies in using these technologies to better understand markets, manage risk and respond to volatility, even as the broader rules continue to evolve.

Across all of these themes, one conclusion stands out: the global economy is becoming more complex, more contested and harder to predict.

For New Zealand exporters, that reality cannot be controlled, but it can be prepared for. That preparation means looking beyond immediate markets, understanding changing supply chains, learning from regions such as Southeast Asia and investing in capability.

The post Alan Bollard on the changing rules of global trade appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

The post Will the budget boost small firms? Not in the way we might think appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

The post Manufacturing excellence celebrated at annual awards appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

By Jim Goddin, Head of Circularity at thinkstep-nz

The Iran crisis has exposed a hard truth for global business: supply chains are only as resilient as their weakest link. When conflict disrupts major trade routes, the effects spread quickly through the wider economy.

The immediate shock may be geopolitical, but the underlying business problem is dependence. Too much reliance on fragile external supply chains leaves companies exposed when conditions change.

This is where critical materials come into focus. For years, discussion has centred on critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements. These matter, and governments are right to worry about them.

But for business, the more immediate issue often sits further along the value chain.

What matters operationally are critical materials: batteries, magnets, alloys, catalysts and electronic components that deliver the performance modern products depend on.

These materials are often hidden within products, used in low concentrations and difficult to substitute without losing performance.

They are also tied to long, complex and fragile global supply chains. That makes them a resilience issue, not just a resource issue.

For New Zealand manufacturers, this matters because distance, scale and reliance on imported components can amplify disruption.

Many manufacturers operate in specialised markets where a single component, supplier or shipping route can determine whether production continues smoothly.

Resilience is not only about holding more stock. It is about understanding where value sits, where dependencies exist and how materials can be kept working for longer.

The transition to renewables must also be resilient

None of this is an argument against renewables. Quite the opposite. Greater use of renewable energy is critical because continued dependence on oil and gas leaves economies exposed to repeated price shocks and geopolitical disruption.

But the transition brings a second challenge.

Many renewable and low-emissions technologies rely on critical materials and concentrated supply chains of their own. If we are not careful, we risk replacing one form of dependence with another.

That is why resilience needs to be designed in from the start. Are these technologies being built for durability?

Can components be recovered and reused? Are products designed for disassembly? How much value is likely to be lost at end of life?

Why circularity matters to critical materials

For many businesses, this volatility is becoming a persistent feature rather than an occasional disruption. Circularity is emerging as one of the most practical ways to respond.

Keeping materials in use for longer reduces reliance on unstable supply chains and preserves the value already embedded in products.

Extending product life, recovering components and retaining control over high-value materials all contribute to a more predictable cost base and stronger resilience.

This is particularly important for critical materials, where conventional recycling often fails to recover full value. Many are used in small quantities and are lost or diluted during standard recycling processes.

As a result, approaches that prioritise durability, reuse and remanufacturing are gaining traction.

In New Zealand, this aligns closely with the opportunity for advanced manufacturing to become more productive, circular and low-emissions.

The study Mapping Emissions and Waste Stream Profiles, and Opportunities for Achieving Net-Zero Circular Advanced Manufacturing thinkstep-anz helped to develop for the New Zealand Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) found that for import-dependent subsectors, circular models that extend service life, enable reuse, remanufacturing and repair, and reduce overall consumption may reduce supply risks and global emissions.

The report also points to more resilient supply chains, lower material and logistics costs and greater domestic value creation as part of the opportunity.

Circularity is not just a theoretical construct. Leading companies are already demonstrating commercial value.

Renault has built a profitable remanufacturing business, while Rolls-Royce has integrated material recovery into its operations through revert systems and service-based models.

In the electric vehicle sector, battery leasing and swapping models are helping manufacturers maintain access to scarce materials while improving utilisation.

Companies such as Caterpillar and Philips are extending product life through refurbishment, reducing reliance on new material inputs.

These models are delivering measurable outcomes, including lower input costs, reduced exposure to disruption and new revenue streams.

What businesses should do next

The first step is visibility. Critical materials are often hidden within products and used at low levels. Businesses need to know where those materials sit in their products, components and supply chains.

For New Zealand manufacturers, that visibility may need to extend beyond tier-one suppliers. A component sourced through a local distributor may still depend on overseas processing, specialist parts or trade routes that are vulnerable to disruption.

Mapping these dependencies can help businesses understand where their most important risks sit.

The next step is to understand exposure. What happens if one of those materials becomes unavailable? What happens if the price rises sharply?

Can that cost be passed on? Would customers still buy the product? Could competitors outbid you for supply? What substitutes are available, and what performance trade-offs would follow?

At what price point would redesign become necessary?

From there, businesses can assess circularity. How likely are those materials to be recovered? Are they currently lost in use or at end of life? Could design changes improve durability, repair, recovery or reuse?

Metrics such as Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) can help identify where critical materials sit and how circular current systems are, giving businesses a practical base for action.

Then comes model innovation. Could high-value components be leased rather than sold? Could take-back schemes retain access to scarce materials?

Is there a secondary market for used products?

Could a revert arrangement with suppliers create value from returned material? These are not fringe ideas. They are practical ways to reduce dependence on volatile supply chains.

Any change carries a cost, so businesses also need to understand trigger points. Knowing when circular strategies become commercially preferable gives teams time to stress test options, make low-cost enabling changes and build resilience before disruption forces a rushed response.

In a more volatile world, the businesses best placed to adapt will be the ones that understand which critical materials matter, where they are exposed and how to keep those materials in circulation for longer.

About Jim Goddin

Jim specialises in circular economy systems design and has worked alongside the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for much of the past decade, including leading and co-authoring the widely adopted Material Circularity Indicator methodology. He has extensive experience in eco-design, critical materials and the assessment of business risks linked to supply chain disruption and regulation.

He has led major research and development programs with global technology companies across advanced manufacturing, composites and materials science, and contributes as a technical expert to international initiatives including the ISO Circular economy metrics framework. He has worked on critical materials as a Member of the UK Governments Critical Minerals Expert Committee, the Advisory board member of the International Round Table on Materials Criticality (IRTC) and the European Rare Earths Competency Network member (ERECON)/

Jim is head of Circular Economy at thinkstep-anz, a sustainability firm that supports organisations to understand material risks, design circular strategies and translate complex data into practical, commercially grounded decisions.

Contact

Jim.Goddin@thinkstep-anz.com

The post Critical materials: the hidden supply chain risk for manufacturers appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

We’re heading back to EMEX 2026, and this year we’ve got something new to share.

Complex projects rarely sit neatly inside one discipline. Electrical design, automation, controls, mechanical design, commissioning, and documentation all need to line up. We’ve introduced Automation & Controls so we can support clients across more of the engineering work it takes to get complex projects delivered. From mechanical design and project engineering through to electrical design, automation, commissioning, and documentation, our goal is to help keep the technical pieces connected and moving.

Caliber Design has been supporting New Zealand engineering companies for 11 years, working with more than 300 companies across 1200+ projects.

Our model is simple: we provide talented engineers on a seconded basis, embedded in your team, working within your systems, standards, and processes to help get projects over the line. Until now, that’s meant mechanical design, FE analysis, product development, and project engineering.

With our new Automation & Controls service, we can now support clients across a broader mix of disciplines. Our degree-qualified engineers can support electrical design, PLC, HMI and SCADA development, commissioning, documentation, and project support, while you retain full control and ownership of the work.

We’re also contributing to the EMEX seminar programme. Daniel du Plessis, our Auckland Regional Manager, is presenting Project Plans Don’t Solve Technical Problems on Wednesday 27 May at 2pm. Dan’s session looks at the gaps that can open up between design, procurement, fabrication, installation, and commissioning, and how technical leadership can support more successful outcomes.

EMEX is always a great chance to celebrate the depth of Kiwi engineering and manufacturing innovation.

We’ll be keeping an eye out for stories for our monthly Celebrating Kiwi Innovation newsletter. If you’d like to be featured, come and find us at Stand 1015.

We currently have vacancies throughout the country and are always keen to meet experienced engineers who are curious about the seconded model and the variety of work it offers across New Zealand industry.

Find us at Stand 1015, or come say hello at the networking function on Tuesday 26 May at 5pm.

The post A New Service to Power Your Projects appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

By EMA Head of Membership and Export Simon Devoy

If there’s one thing Kiwi manufacturers and exporters don’t need in 2026, it’s more noise. Between tariffs, geopolitical tensions and the return of supply chain disruption, clarity is harder to find.

That is why the ExportNZ DHL Export Barometer matters, and why more manufacturers and exporters need to contribute to it.

The EMA supports ExportNZ’s work north of Taupō, connecting exporters across the Upper North Island into a national advocacy voice. That voice is only as strong as the evidence behind it. The Barometer is one of the clearest ways we can cut through uncertainty and influence the policy and support settings that shape global competitiveness.

The 2025 results showed resilience under pressure.

Nearly half of exporters increased export orders, and a further third held steady. That performance stands out given the backdrop. Beneath that headline, serious pressures remain.

Logistics continues to be the number one constraint. Even as shipping costs remained high but relatively stable, 72 percent of exporters still cited shipping costs as a supply chain impact. With continued instability across key global trade routes, those costs are again under pressure. For manufacturers operating on tight margins, this directly affects competitiveness.

At the same time, concern about global trade tensions has increased sharply. The proportion of exporters worried about escalating trade wars has more than doubled year on year. Tariffs, particularly in the United States, are adding complexity, even where the full impact is still unfolding.

There is also clear opportunity in the data. Manufacturers and exporters are adapting by developing new products, strengthening their digital presence, and exploring new markets. The United Kingdom and Japan are gaining traction, while Australia and the United States remain core markets.

These insights directly inform the EMA’s annual Global X Summit, which takes place this year on 13 August at the Cordis in Auckland and will focus on supply chain resilience, shifting trade dynamics, and market diversification.

The survey also allows for more targeted discussion at the summit. When freight volatility is a key concern, sessions can move beyond high-level commentary into practical strategies such as alternative routing, inventory models, nearshoring, and pricing approaches.

The same approach applies to emerging themes. The 2025 survey showed that only around a quarter of exporters are using AI to improve productivity. This highlights both a gap and an opportunity. It also signals the need to bring in relevant expertise and real-world case studies, rather than discussing technology in general terms.

Looking ahead, the 2026 Barometer includes targeted questions on how rising freight and fuel costs are affecting competitiveness, whether businesses can pass on those costs, and how supply chains are being restructured.

There is also a stronger focus on tariffs and trade policy.

Questions on US tariffs, supply chain rerouting, and cost absorption will provide a clearer picture of the impact and where support is most needed.

A broader strategic theme is also emerging. The renewed push for free trade agreements reflects what exporters have been signalling for years. Market access remains a priority, and support for trade agreements and trade show participation continues to rank among the top requests to government.

From an EMA perspective, the message is straightforward. Effective advocacy requires robust, current, and representative data. Events like Global X deliver the most value when they are grounded in what exporters are actually experiencing.

Whether you are exporting engineered components, processed food, or advanced materials, your input matters. The Barometer takes less than 10 minutes to complete, and the insights shape months of advocacy, engagement, and capability building.

You can access the survey here: survey.businessnz.org.nz/zs/yaD1R0

The post Listening harder in a noisier world appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon & Co

For over 20 years, we have helped hundreds of New Zealand businesses improve productivity and increase EBIT.

The outcomes are practical, measurable, and often achieved without significant capital investment. For example:

• A plastics manufacturer increased throughput by 60%, with the same labour cost
• A food manufacturer reduced waste by 50%, saving more than $1 million annually
• An electrical manufacturer improved assembly productivity by over 30%

These results come from looking at the whole system: people, processes, technology, and the underlying causes of performance issues. By applying the right methodologies and tools in practical ways, we deliver meaningful outcomes within short timeframes.

Working alongside businesses, we build internal capability, so improvements are sustained long after the initial work is complete.

If you would like to know more, come and see us at EMEX. We will be running a competition to help you understand how productive you are today, and how much more productive you could be. We will also be speaking on these topics during the event.

We look forward to seeing you there.

The post Delivering Productivity at EMEX 2026 appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Success isn’t what you start. It’s what you don’t stop.

When you spend time inside New Zealand’s best manufacturing businesses there’s a pattern that shows up again and again.

• They don’t launch more initiatives
• They don’t chase the latest tool
• They don’t rely on heroic effort or last‑minute pushes. They keep doing the basics. Day after day, week after week. Long after most other businesses have moved on to something new.

David Altena is Head of Growth & Partnerships at SpartSpace.ai & C0-Founder & Host of The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions

Not because they have better ideas. But because they’re more disciplined about the unglamorous ones and that is where the real performance gap opens up.

Ask most manufacturers what separates the best businesses in their sector from the rest, it’s likely you’ll hear a familiar list: better equipment, smarter technology, bigger balance sheets, the best people. Attributes that feel largely out of reach.

Rob Bull is Director of the New Zealand Lean Academy. rob@nzla.nz

Strip those answers back and they share a common thread, the belief that top performance is driven by circumstances you can’t replicate.

The truth is harder, and more uncomfortable. The advantage of the 1% isn’t what they know. It’s what they refuse to let slide.

World-class manufacturers don’t have better luck or bigger budgets. They do the hard, boring, strategic work, consistently. That should be the most motivating fact in New Zealand manufacturing right now.

“Anyone can buy the equipment. It’s culture and operational excellence that set you apart.”

Dave Bunting, Managing Director, Architectural Glass Products

Dave Bunting put it plainly in an episode of The Better SMB Podcast: the equipment is not the advantage. Any competitor can buy the same press, the same CNC, the same ERP system. What doesn’t come off the shelf is the operational discipline and leadership culture to make the equipment perform through people.

AGP’s approach is instructive. A flat organisational structure. Daily meetings where data drives the conversation. Hiring for cultural fit, not just technical skill. None of it is exotic. All of it is deliberate.

It is simple. But simple is not easy.

The Consistency Advantage

Sustainable success is not about a single brilliant decision, but is built from thousands of small ones made (or not made) consistently over time delivering compounding results.

The businesses pulling ahead aren’t doing more things. They’re doing the right things more reliably.

They know their numbers and look at them every day. Standard operating procedures are followed. Their leaders understand that strategy is worthless if it only lives in a document. They stay close to the work and to the people doing it.

As Dave Bunting puts it:

“What gets measured gets worked on. Being disciplined is key, you can’t just do it for a week and then forget about it for six weeks.”

That’s not a lean insight. It’s a leadership one; it’s exactly where most businesses fail.

The pattern is familiar. A daily huddle starts well. It runs for a few weeks. Then the MD gets busy. Attendance drops. It becomes optional. Then it disappears altogether.

The initiative didn’t fail because it was a bad idea. It failed because consistency was treated as a nice‑to‑have, not a non‑negotiable.

But Where Do You Actually Stand?

Before you can close a gap, you need to know if one even exists.

It sounds obvious. In practice, most New Zealand business owners are still relying on instinct and experience rather than any clear, structured view of how their business is actually performing.

• They know where things feel strong
• They have a sense of where the problems probably sit

But when asked to point to the few disciplines that matter most, and if those are being applied consistently, the picture is often fuzzy.

That lack of clarity is part of the problem.

The 1% don’t guess where they stand. They have a shared view of performance across leadership, customers, people, execution and results. Not because they enjoy measurement, but because consistency depends on visibility. You can’t hold a standard you can’t see.

The gap between average and exceptional isn’t created by ambition.

It’s created by how honestly leaders look at the business and how willing they are to act on what is revealed.

What Actually Gets Rewarded

This isn’t a new idea.

The world’s most rigorous business excellence frameworks reward the same thing. Not short‑term results or isolated breakthroughs, but disciplined leadership and consistency over time.

The Shingo Prize and the Malcolm Baldrige Award both assess whether these behaviours are embedded in the way a business actually operates: how leaders lead, how work is done, and how improvement is sustained.

Even locally, business awards run by Chambers across New Zealand function as a form of structured self‑assessment. The real value isn’t the trophy, it’s the clarity that comes from completing an application.

None of these frameworks are about tools.

They’re about discipline.

Habits That Compound

Top‑performing manufacturers share a small set of habits and they apply them relentlessly.

They lead with data, not instinct. They know their key metrics, not because they have better software, but because leadership has made visibility non‑negotiable.

They invest in people before they have to. Leadership is treated as a capability to be built, not a title to be awarded.

Problems are expected. Solving them transparently and in ways that prevent recurrence is how performance compounds.

The Distance Is Smaller Than You Think

You don’t need a transformation budget. The distance between where you are and where the top 1% operate is not a chasm. It’s a set of disciplines, applied consistently.

The question is whether you’re willing to be boring about it.

• Hold the 8:30 meeting when you’re busy.
• Review the numbers every week, not just when they’re bad.
• Be honest about where standards are slipping and act on it.

The 1% are not smarter than you.

They are more consistent and know exactly where they are.

Both of those things are within reach.

A practical next step

Many of the behaviours discussed in this column are hard to judge from inside your own business. The Better SMB has recently released a simple benchmarking tool – PerformIQ – to help manufacturers see how they’ve performed, compare themselves to industry and identify a clear next step.

Early access is available for The Last Word readers here

The post Lessons from the 1% appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Adam Harvey, Business Performance Partner – Manufacturing , The Learning Wave

You can feel good leadership before you see it. A strong shift hums. There’s a rhythm: Clean handovers, problems solved where they happen, and a team that knows what “good” is.

Output is steady. Waste is controlled. The team owns it.

You can feel a weak one too. The plan exists…somewhere. Standards are vague. Rework builds without anyone asking “why”. And when you’re in it, it feels like you’re constantly chasing your table.

Most manufacturing businesses don’t have a strategy problem. They have a leadership one.

The productivity illusion

Right now, the industry is full of intent. We’re chasing efficiency with everything we’ve got. New systems. Dashboards. Automation. Continuous improvement programmes. Everyone is chasing that extra 2% of output.

It feels like progress. But if your leaders on the floor can’t lead performance, none of it sticks.

If they can’t set clear expectations, keep the team focused on what matters, and have the tough conversations when standards slip, you haven’t improved performance. You’ve just made inefficiency faster.

It’s like putting a faster engine into a car with no steering. It moves. But not where you need it to.

Where the performance actually leaks

Most leaders can’t pinpoint where the operation is losing performance because it doesn’t show up as one big issue. It leaks.

A missed standard. A shortcut. A conversation avoided. A problem escalated that should never have left the floor. Individually, small. Across a shift, expensive.

The biggest leak is “silence on standards”. Every time a leader sees something off and says nothing, the standard drops. And once it drops, it spreads.

Most frontline leaders aren’t underperforming because they don’t care. They’re stuck. Reacting. Firefighting. Being the best operator instead of the best leader.

But the moment they step in to do the work, they’ve stepped out of leading it. That’s when performance starts leaking. The “Tactical Trap”.

More rework. Slower decisions. Escalations that should never have left the floor. Planning that never makes it off a post-it.

Here’s the part most leaders underestimate: that leak isn’t 2%. It’s closer to 30%. So while you’re chasing marginal gains, your operation is leaking multiples of that every day.

 Different leadership. Different results.

When leaders step out of “doing” and into “leading”, the numbers move. Fast.

Not because anything magical happens. But because expectations are clear, problems get solved, standards get held, and teams start owning results.

We’ve seen it repeatedly. At Altus, leaders were operating in siloes. Once they got the tools to solve problems together, one team reduced product rejects by 70%.

At AFFCO Rangiuru, a leader who avoided leading toolbox meetings for three years stepped up and led them. The team is clearer. Standards have lifted. Output is up, as is yield. That’s money.

We’ve seen other leaders lift yield and add $144K in revenue, increase team output by 18%, and reduce costs by hundreds of thousands by addressing problems earlier, setting expectations, and aligning teams around what matters most.

No new machinery. No new headcount.

Better leaders, better performance. It’s that simple.

So you want better results? Unlock your leaders

Leadership is hard. It’s messy. Expecting a great operator to lead a diverse team under pressure without deliberate training is a gamble.

The operations pulling ahead aren’t leaving it to chance. They’re building leaders who can set standards, solve problems early, and drive performance through their teams.

They know that for every $1 they invest in leadership, they get $6 back.

So, if you’re honest about your operation now, are your leaders driving the results you’ve planned for? If not, give us a yell.

We’ve built the capability of thousands of Kiwi manufacturing leaders. Will yours be next?

The post Leadership: The difference between the plan you have and the results you get appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Article 3: V2

–By Neil Robinson, a Senior Business Consultant with Argon & Co (Auckland) specialising in productivity improvement, Lean systems and capability building.

If you’re reading this third article in the series, you already know that New Zealand manufacturers face a difficult reality: our productivity lags many of the countries we compete with.

Labour is tight, costs continue to rise, and customers expect more value delivered faster and with fewer errors. This situation demands stronger, more reliable processes.

Many operational leaders feel this pressure daily. The question is no longer “Should we improve?” It’s “How can we improve quickly, sustainably, and with the people we already have?”

The good news is that there is a practical way forward. More leaders are turning to hands-on capability building, such as the 4×4 Simulation, to lift performance from the inside out.

In Article 1, we explored how teams experience the shift from chaos to flow. In Article 2, we looked at how the deeper two-day version helps participants understand why improvements work and how to apply them in their own workplace.

Now we arrive at the next evolution: the Digital 4×4 Simulation, where participants combine practical learning with real-time operational data to accelerate improvement.

1.1 Why New Zealand Needs This Now

New Zealand’s productivity challenge is well documented. We work hard, often very hard, but too often our processes let us down. Unreliable flow, inconsistent standards, firefighting, quality escapes, poor teamwork, unbalanced workloads, and slow changeovers all eat into profit.

Software alone is not the answer. Automation alone cannot fix this. Even continuous improvement programmes struggle if the foundation of process stability is not in place.

This is why the Digital 4×4 matters. It helps teams see, understand, and improve the behaviours and systems that control productivity, then strengthens that learning with digital insights that make improvement faster, clearer, and more repeatable.

For many organisations, this is a relief: a practical, enjoyable, proven way to build the capability needed to become more competitive.

1.2 Round 1: Chaos and Discovery

As with the manual versions, Digital 4×4 begins with Round 1, a fast, frantic test of the team’s ability to assemble the product under conditions that mirror real-world instability.

Importantly, data is still collected manually at this stage. Why? Because the chaos is obvious. A dashboard would simply confirm what everyone already sees and feels. In this data-poor environment, participants experience the true cost of instability, which builds honesty, empathy, and shared recognition.

Leaders often say after Round 1, “That felt surprisingly familiar.”

Once participants have experienced the pain of poor flow, we begin teaching the best practices that reduce variation, stabilise work, and lay the foundation for improved performance.

1.3 Round 2: Introducing Data to Accelerate Improvement

By the time Round 2 begins, the team has learned and applied several improvements. The system is still developing, but basic stability has emerged. This is the ideal moment to introduce digital data.

Each workstation is equipped with sensors to measure cycle times, waiting time, throughput, idle periods, and bottleneck formation. At the round’s end, a dashboard report shows the effect of the changes and highlights where more work is needed.

Now participants can compare what they thought was happening, what they observed, and what the data shows.

This builds trust in data and accelerates learning. Balanced workloads produce smoother cycle time graphs. Better layout shortens queues and lifts throughput. Quality at source reduces rework spikes. Shorter changeovers reduce downtime sharply.

Participants begin to see the process like experienced analysts, recognising patterns, questioning variation, and identifying where targeted changes will have the greatest impact.

1.4 Round 3: Real-Time Improvement, Using Data as You Work

In Round 3, everything comes together. Participants now understand the simulation, the principles, and the data. Most importantly, they trust the data.

The round becomes a live improvement environment where the team watches the dashboard as they work, identifies issues as they appear, and intervenes during the run to correct them.

This mirrors the behaviour of world-class manufacturers, who use real-time data to maintain flow, reduce variation, and prevent bottlenecks before they affect customers.

Something important happens in this round. Teams stop reacting emotionally or relying on assumptions. They begin responding rationally, using evidence, context, and collaboration.

This is modern operational excellence, and the result is a more confident, capable, and data-literate workforce.

1.5 A Capability New Zealand Needs

For NZ manufacturers under pressure to improve productivity, the Digital 4×4 Simulation offers three critical capabilities.

1. Deep process understanding
   Participants learn why processes behave the way they do.
2. Accelerated improvement through data
   People learn to interpret variation, trust metrics, and act on evidence.
3. A practical path to Industry 4.0
   Before investing in sensors, automation, or advanced analytics, teams learn how to use data effectively in a safe, “hands-on” environment.

For many organisations, this combination is the missing link between wanting better performance and achieving it.

1.6 Relief, Clarity, and a Way Forward

Productivity pressures are not going away. Competition is not easing. Customers are not lowering their expectations.

But the Digital 4×4 Simulation shows that progress is achievable. It gives teams clarity, confidence, and a shared experience of what better looks like.

For leaders, it offers something rare: relief that productive, sustainable change is possible, not through expensive programmes, but through practical learning that teams genuinely enjoy.

Ready to move? Call or email today and we’ll confirm suitability and secure a delivery window. Neil Robinson 021 873 214 neil.robinson@argonandco.com

The post Data, Decisions, and the Drive for Productivity, A Digital Path to World Class Performance appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

From May issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine

The latest version, EMEX 2026, is mere days away.

The most focussed trade fair for manufacturing businesses in New Zealand continues to display the latest and advanced equipment and technology which our companies require to improve their levels of Productivity and to make better their chances of success on local and export markets.

There is no getting away from the fact that New Zealand’s future depends on continuing to find avenues overseas for our quality products. We can’t, of course, guarantee markets. We strive to be product perfect and cost competitive, in a cluttered world where it is everyone for themselves.

And the technology and expertise from EMEX 2026 can help your company get there.

There is a real plethora of events for your interest, including the Make NZ Industry Conference; the Epicor Knowledge Theatre; Harnex AI Workshops; the Minister for Manufacturing Awards; plus, a host of Industry Speakers, including Ian Walsh from Argon & Co and David Altana from The Better SMB, to bring you up to date with expert advice for better business.

Enjoy the trade show, savour in the experience, make new business contacts and make every second count as you network for your company’s future.

-Doug Green, Publisher, NZ Manufacturer magazine

The post EMEX is with us again appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

-Mike Warmington, Director, Platform 1

There has always been talk about a tsunami of businesses actively seeking an exit of some description. It has not come to New Zealand yet and with covid, tariffs, wars, high interest rates and fuel price concerns there is a lot of waiting going on.

What we are seeing is something less dramatic. A lot of waiting.

Waiting for the economy to improve.
Waiting for interest rates to fall.
Waiting for one more strong year.
Waiting for “the right time” to finally make a move.

On the surface, this waiting seems sensible. Why make a major decision if conditions might be better just around the corner?

The problem is that the right time never taps you on the shoulder. Also nobody I know has a crystal ball that actually works.

The Hidden Cost of Waiting

What tends to happen isn’t always dramatic but options narrow and flexibility disappears.

We have come across major client loss, health issues ,loss of a key agency, Australian consolidation and many other events that have narrowed options for owners who were waiting. A waiting owner we were talking to for three years had a health event then said to me “I wish I had acted when we first talked” Unfortunately the business still relied on him, had suffered, and it was too late to save.

The Myth of Perfect Conditions

There is a common belief that momentum comes from ideal circumstances, a strong economy, demand, cheap money and high business confidence.

In reality, momentum usually comes from a decision to prepare.

The people who exit well aren’t the ones who perfectly time the cycle. They’re the ones who start early enough to shape how they leave their business.

Exit Planning Doesn’t Mean Exiting Tomorrow

One of the misunderstandings around exit planning is that it means exiting immediately.

In many cases, the smartest first step isn’t a confirmed exit plan at all. It’s simply getting some clarity on your exit options.

That might mean:

• Having a honest discussion with your Advisor and understanding what your business could realistically be worth
• Outright or over time ?
• Exploring whether a partner could be introduced gradually
• Identifying which parts of the business still rely too heavily on you
• Clarifying what you want your life to look like post exit.

None of these steps commit you to leaving now. They give you information which restores control.

Why Starting Early Makes Everything Easier

Early planning buys you time. Time to strengthen the business without pressure. Time to choose the right path rather than the quickest one. Time to transition responsibility gradually rather than forced to act now.

In my experience the difference between a good exit and a rushed one often comes down to when the thinking began, not when the exit occurred.

The Real Risk Isn’t Moving Too Early

For most owners, the real risk isn’t moving too early but rather waiting too long.

The future tends to favour owners who plan ahead, not those who wait perfectly. Starting sooner doesn’t mean forcing change, it means giving yourself choices while you still have them.

The post Business exit and the waiting trap appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

-Mark Devlin

New world-first technology developed to prevent design errors from cascading throughout the country’s most complex construction project to date could reduce cost overruns in New Zealand’s $275bn infrastructure pipeline by millions of dollars, as well as cutting new building emissions by up to 80%, according to new data.

Modelling from the Government’s $290m Te Rua National Archives shows that if digital twin technology is introduced from the design stage of large-scale projects to identify and address flaws across the infrastructure pipeline to the levels achieved on Te Rua, where contingency spend was held to five percent against an industry average of up to ten percent, New Zealand could potentially avoid millions of dollars in construction cost overruns.

Data also shows that the preventative maintenance capability of the technology could reduce operational carbon emissions of a building by up to 80%.

It is believed that with the integration of AI, the methodology could also be adapted for use in New Zealand’s planned multibillion-dollar healthcare infrastructure programme to produce clinically safer environments for patients.

The recently completed Te Rua Archive in Wellington is the most technically demanding building ever constructed in New Zealand. Designed to remain operational after a one in 1,800-year earthquake, it must maintain temperature and humidity within a one degree tolerance for at least 48 hours in a power failure to protect taonga and government records held under UNESCO Memory of the World obligations.

Phill Stanley, portfolio manager for ASX-listed Dexus, says these performance requirements meant the project could not rely on traditional construction methodologies, as even minor errors would have compromised the stability of the collection.

“When you are managing irreplaceable taonga and national records, there is no margin for error. Any design flaw that affects temperature, humidity or structural performance directly threatens the integrity of the collection, so we needed absolute certainty that every element of the building would perform exactly as intended, not just on day one but for decades to come.”

The digital twin created for Te Rua generated a three-dimensional virtual design environment that allowed architects, engineers and contractors to detect and resolve clashes before they occurred on site. A clash is a conflict that occurs when two parts of a building are designed to occupy the same physical space, meaning they cannot both be built as drawn.

These errors are common in complex projects and can cause major delays and cost blowouts once contractors discover that services, beams or mechanical systems physically cannot fit together on site.

The archive’s model was ‘clash-free’ at the tender stage, which is an accuracy level not previously seen in complex civic construction in New Zealand. Contractors used on-site stations connected to the live design so they could install services with millimetre accuracy, and augmented reality was deployed for quality assurance during installation, which allowed the design team to validate work in real time.

The system was customised extensively for Te Rua with climate control and viewing tools built to meet exact archival tolerances.

It can simulate full or partial power outages, test generator performance, monitor structural movement through accelerometers and give preservation teams direct visibility of conditions that could compromise historic material.

Stanley says the technology was adopted to reduce the operational risks associated with a building that must protect national records in perpetuity.

He says that while no two infrastructure projects are identical, achieving these financial results on a project of this complexity demonstrates substantial, repeatable savings potential across the broader infrastructure pipeline.

“This really does lift the bar in a way we have not seen before. It shows what is possible when everything is coordinated from day one. The scale of the model and the accuracy behind it are unlike anything we have worked with in New Zealand. For us, it gave a level of design certainty you just do not get on projects of this complexity.

Stanley says the technology is particularly suited to hospitals that have high service density and heavy environmental loadings.

He says digital twins could also support data centres, water storage facilities and civic buildings and may eventually be used in large residential developments to give occupants direct access to energy and maintenance information.

“The technology has clear applications across New Zealand’s planned healthcare infrastructure spend.

“The next generation of hospitals, including the new Dunedin Hospital, the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital, the expansion of Wellington’s Emergency Department and major upgrades across Auckland’s hospital network, will all require the same level of coordination and environmental performance delivered at Te Rua.

“These facilities rely on uninterrupted power, complex mechanical systems and precise climate control and even minor faults can create clinical risk.

“Digital twins could help control costs, reduce construction delays and ensure clinical spaces meet strict operational and environmental requirements from the day they open.”

Stanley says while New Zealand has previously been slower to adopt digital design, that gap now represents a chance to reset industry practice and prevent the design clashes that traditionally surfaced only once construction was underway.

“You cannot retrofit this level of coordination. You have to make the decision right at the start or you lose the opportunity. Once you commit early everything else becomes more predictable.”

Once the building opened, the digital twin became a live facilities management system.

The project embedded over 20,000 assets into the operational model which now provides real time information about temperature, humidity, energy use and structural movement.

Facilities managers can monitor performance and address faults before they become disruptive which supports long term resilience and significantly lowers ongoing costs. Data shows the building has already achieved an 80 percent reduction in operational carbon which equates to 1,330 tonnes through smart monitoring and control of environmental systems.

Stanley says the next generation of the technology will begin integrating AI so it can learn from patterns of use, detect subtle changes in performance and autonomously recommend adjustments before problems appear.

He says this will allow facilities teams to shift from routine monitoring to fully predictive asset management. 

“Systems will be able to flag components that are likely to fail months in advance, automatically adjust environmental settings to reduce energy waste and analyse seismic or structural data to identify early signs of stress that are invisible to the human eye.”

Nik Kemp, executive general manager for growth markets at Dexus, says the archive was delivered in partnership with the Government, which enabled the technical seismic and cultural requirements to be met.

“From the outset we knew that cost certainty was non-negotiable. When you are delivering a project of this complexity on behalf of the Government, the risk profile is significant and the tolerance for cost drift is very low.

“The digital twin gave us the visibility we needed to keep the budget stable while still meeting seismic, cultural and archival performance requirements that were unlike anything attempted in New Zealand. It allowed us to manage risk in a disciplined way and give the Government confidence that the project would be delivered exactly as promised.

“For anyone delivering civic infrastructure this kind of approach is fast becoming essential. It gives you real clarity on design and cost and confidence that the finished asset will perform the way it needs to.

“My view is that this will become the gold standard for major projects. At its heart it is not just about better buildings. It is about better collaboration and better relationships,” he says.

The post World-First construction tech could cut building emissions by 80% appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

From May issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine

Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon & Co

While there are industries — car assembly, for example — where the economic case for local production can be debated, food is different. Producing food is something we should be doing. More than that, it is something we must do well.

The story of Heinz — and by association Wattie’s — is one that is very near and dear to my heart. I have worked in this business on and off since the 1990s, in the UK, the US, and across ANZ.

That lived experience matters, because this is not a theoretical discussion about ownership structures or ideology. It is a practical lesson in how value is built over decades — and how it can be lost just as surely.

Under the leadership of Tony O’Reilly, Heinz became one of the great global food companies of the late twentieth century.

Through the 1980s and early 1990s, the strategy was clear: disciplined international expansion, strong brand investment, and relentless focus on cost and productivity.

The acquisition of Wattie’s in 1992 — for approximately NZ$565 million — fit this pattern perfectly: a category‑leading local brand with deep trust and export potential.

Markets rewarded this approach. By the early 1990s, Heinz’s market value had grown to roughly US$10–15 billion. Scale, brand power, and operating discipline reinforced one another. But acquisition‑led growth is never free.

Each successive wave of M&A expanded the footprint and lifted shareholder expectations. With every deal came aging assets, capital‑intensive manufacturing plants, and increasing complexity.

To sustain growth and fund further acquisitions, the base business had to extract more productivity and cut costs. Over time, this narrowed the margin for error.

Many manufacturing sites were already under‑capitalised when acquired. They required sustained reinvestment simply to remain competitive. Too often, that investment was deferred.

Short‑term financial results were protected, but long‑term capability slowly eroded. Brand investment declined. Operational flexibility reduced. Vulnerability increased — not through one bad decision, but through many rational short‑term ones.

For a time, markets continued to look through these issues. By the mid‑2000s Heinz was still valued at around US$12 billion.

In 2013, Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital acquired Heinz for approximately US$23 billion, reflecting enduring confidence in its iconic brands and the belief that tighter financial discipline could unlock further value.

The 2015 merger with Kraft initially appeared to confirm that view. At its peak in 2016–2017, Kraft Heinz reached a market valuation of over US$100 billion.

The following decade, however, told a different story. Cost‑cutting without sufficient reinvestment weakened brands, slowed innovation, and undermined operational resilience. By 2026, Kraft Heinz’s market capitalisation had fallen back to roughly US$26–27 billion.

This trajectory is not simply about macroeconomics or financial engineering. It is a lesson in culture, capability, and time horizon.

There were parts of the Heinz system that achieved world‑class operational performance, but too many improvements proved temporary — undone by repeated restructuring, leadership churn, and short‑term pressures. Without continuity, performance cultures do not endure.

The lesson is broader than one company. It should be possible to compete in food manufacturing using products grown locally, at global standards of cost and quality. We have the capability and the people to do so.

Yet the evidence shows that only those organisations willing to invest consistently in long‑term capability develop the resilience that markets ultimately reward.

World‑class performance in food manufacturing is not aspirational — it is mandatory. Being “good enough” is not a strategy; it is a slow drift into irrelevance.

Leaders, boards, and owners face a clear choice: invest ahead of the cycle, align incentives to long‑term capability, and commit to operational excellence — or accept decline.

Markets eventually price capability, or the absence of it. The only real question is whether we act early, or learn late.

The post World class is not optional appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

$144K recovered. 18% more output.

When literacy improves, performance follows.

As an operational or HR leader, you see the issues every day. Downtime that shouldn’t have happened. Instructions that were acknowledged but not followed. People waiting around for instructions, not sure of what’s next. And a strange silence during safety briefings or shift handovers.

Most leaders call it “poor engagement”. Some call it “poor attitude”.

But what if it’s not the real problem?

The real constraint holding us back

In Kiwi operational environments, at least 50% of frontline teams lack the literacy and numeracy skills to thrive in increasingly complex workplaces. Think manufacturing, construction, and logistics, and that figure is closer to 70%.

This isn’t an HR issue; it’s a literacy issue showing up as lost performance. And it’s quietly draining your bottom line.

What you’ll experience in 60 minutes:

• The redacted reality: We’ll apply a “CIA-style” redaction tool to a real-life induction document to show you exactly what a worker with an average reading age actually sees. What looks “clear” to you isn’t always readable to them.
• Connecting the “performance leaks” to the literacy gap: Connect the dots between downtime, rework, missed targets, and silence in meetings. You’ll see literacy gaps where you once saw attitude and engagement issues.
• How we start with the numbers, not textbooks: Learn how we build capability around your targets, your operational challenges, and your numbers, and strengthen literacy and numeracy to make it stick.
• What happens when it clicks: We’ll share real Kiwi case studies where teams built the literacy to read and respond to the work, they delivered an 18% lift in output, and recovered $144K in waste.
• The Operational Performance Diagnostic: You’ll leave with a high-level Operational Performance Diagnostic to pinpoint exactly where your plant is leaking performance

Stop guessing. Start finding the money. Don’t let unnoticed gaps continue to drain your bottom line.

 If you’re being asked to do more with what you’ve already got, this is where you start.

📅 Thursday 11 June 🕤 9:30am 💻 Online 👉 Register here: https://thelearningwave.com/free-webinar-register-now/

The post Free 60-minute webinar appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Another Budget, another election year. Lots of hand wringing? I hope not.

The business community needs government to invest more and assist to make life better for all of us.

Through these challenging times, we are not hearing from Ministers, expressing concerns, or sharing ideas to address the difficulties businesses are facing.

When companies are challenged in moving forward, there needs to be options that can assist.

Take for example Wattie’s and McCains, where are the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing? If they are working on a plan to improve the lot of these two companies, they are sure not letting business and communities know what is going on.

If there are meetings going on, share the outcomes.

Regions like Hawkes Bay are renowned for the quality of their products. Growers all over the country too. Rural business is holding the country together, financially, with their ginormous returns for high quality hort and agricultural export products.

It is not the Queen Street farmer driving these efforts!

In the Budget, we need to see investment into Manufacturing for companies to go forward, with confidence, and continue to grow.

Manufacturing companies need the ability to invest in technology to do better and to enhance our market share. Improved technology can result in improved productivity, which can result in an improved bottom line.

We cannot have a budget like the one in 2025, when to balance the books, the Finance Minister needed the money that was to be used for equal pay!

I get it that in an election year members of Parliament may not want to comment or share ideas with the population because their words may well be remembered, affecting their chances of re-election.

However, they work for us; with business, to bring about the changes (and support) needed to be prosperous, and to meet the ambitions of all peoples to get ahead.

The post (I wonder) What is in the Budget for manufacturers? appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

The post NZ‑India free trade deal: were early fears about immigration and investment justified? appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

When a major employer closes and another downsizes, the impact doesn’t stop at the factory gate.

In Hastings it affects workers, growers, contractors, suppliers, transport operators, local businesses, and families across our region – because when steady jobs disappear, it is felt around kitchen tables, in local shops, and across the wider community.

That is why the recent changes at McCain and Wattie’s matter to our community, and why Council has a role to play. Over recent weeks we’ve brought together growers and industry to understand the drivers and impacts, and successfully pushed for a national review of the issues that have resulted in these business decisions.

Wattie’s is not just a factory. For many families in this district, it is part of their history. Parents and grandparents worked there. Growers built businesses around supplying it. Contractors and transport operators have relied on it. It is part of Hastings’ identity as a food-producing district.

But it is also important to say this clearly: Hastings is not starting from a weak position.

We have strong growers, manufacturers, exporters and businesses that continue to play a major role in our district. Hastings is a powerhouse in primary industry, manufacturing, health and technology for the region, which provide about 60 per cent of Hawke’s Bay jobs, and we must remain focused on continued growth.

We have an opportunity and a responsibility to respond with urgency to these recent announcements.

Since they were made, I have been working with Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Will Foley, growers and industry, to advocate at a national level with one clear Hawke’s Bay voice.

This is a regional and national issue, not just a Hastings issue. Many affected growers are in Central Hawke’s Bay. Workers come from across the region, including Napier. The consequences reach well beyond one council boundary.

It is also clear that the response cannot sit with local government alone. These closures are not just local business decisions. They raise serious questions about energy costs, food security, processing capacity, supply chains, and whether regional New Zealand can keep growing and making food close to where it is produced.

That is why the Primary Production Select Committee’s decision to open a briefing into these closures matters. Following strong advocacy from this region, Hawke’s Bay now has a national forum where growers, workers, councils and businesses can put the facts on the table – what has driven these decisions, what the impacts are, and what practical steps may be needed.

There is a second part to this work as well: Hastings must keep building a stronger, more diverse economy.

Our primary industries will always be at the heart of who we are. They are a huge strength. But this moment shows why we also need to keep pulling the levers Council does have to support industrial growth, food innovation, technology, manufacturing and knowledge-based jobs.

Over the past decade, Council has rezoned land to enable industrial development at Irongate and Ōmāhu Road, supported wet industry capacity at Whakatū and Tōmoana, and supported Foodeast Haumako as a food innovation hub.

Interest in industrial-zoned land remains strong, including from forward-looking, technology-driven companies. The high uptake of Irongate land has seen pre-planning underway for the expansion of that industrial area to cater for further growth.

This is where Hastings needs to be ambitious and practical at the same time. We must back the industries we already have, while attracting the next generation of food innovation, agri-tech, high-value processing, export-focused businesses and knowledge-based employers.

That is not fluffy economic talk. It matters because good jobs give young people a reason to stay, families the confidence to build a future here, and businesses the confidence to invest. A stronger economy also helps protect the rating base, which matters when households are already under pressure from rates, power, insurance and everyday costs.

None of this removes the immediate impact of what McCain and Heinz Wattie’s have decided. It does not pay a worker’s mortgage or replace a grower’s contract tonight.

There are things Council cannot do. We cannot force a multinational company to keep a plant open. We do not control national energy prices, supermarket settings, export markets, trade policy or consumer preferences. We should not pretend local government has powers it does not have.

But we can bring growers and industry together to address issues, advocate nationally and enable commercial growth. We can support investment. And we can make sure Hastings is not passive about its future.

People across the district are already asking the right questions. Do growers and suppliers have alternative processing options? Are there new ownership or partnership models that could work? What would it take to attract the next generation of food businesses, manufacturers and agri-tech companies?

Those questions deserve serious answers. Some answers will need to come from central government. Some from industry. Some from growers, processors and investors. Council’s role is to help bring those conversations together, advocate for Hastings and Hawke’s Bay, and keep building the conditions for people and businesses to succeed here.

Hastings has come through hard economic times before. We have the people, the land, the skills and the drive to work through this one too.

The work now is to make sure we do not simply react to change, but shape what comes next for Hawke’s Bay.

The post Talking point from Mayor Wendy Schollum: McCain and Wattie’s closures appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Andrew Bayly, Chris Penk and Cameron Brewer have been the ministers for Small Business and Manufacturing in the past three years.

How has this happened? Manufacturing in New Zealand requires a strong focus and a minister in the position for the long haul (or three years as the political term permits). To get to know how businesses function and the support they need for success.

First there was Andrew Bayly, Chris Penk has been moved up in cabinet and Cameron Brewer is a brand-new appointment.

How does the manufacturing community feel about this constant change? Because if National loses the upcoming election, there will have  beeen four ministers in a short period of time…but let us not get ahead of ourselves.

Manufacturing – all that is made – is consequential to our way of life. It goes without saying that if NZ does not have a manufacturing sector, it does not have an economy.

If businesses are concerned about how long a minister is in the position, to do the position justice, they need to make their voices heard.

Ministers need time to get to know how manufacturers function – familiarity -and the assistance they require, to enhance our standard of living and celebrate innovation.

The post Three Ministers for Small Business and Manufacturing in Three Years appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

By Neil Robinson, a Senior Business Consultant with Argon & Co (Auckland) specialising in productivity improvement, Lean systems and capability building.

 Welcome back! If you joined us for Article 1, you’ll remember how the World Class Productivity Simulation gives teams a powerful, hands-on experience of what helps — and what hinders — operational performance. Many participants leave that first session with a renewed sense of possibility.

“The only sustainable competitive advantage is an organisation’s ability to learn faster than the competition.”
— Peter Senge

In manufacturing, it’s easy to fall into a trap: when performance dips, the organisation responds with speed — quick fixes, point solutions, and local optimisation.

Sometimes that helps. Often it creates new problems elsewhere, because the symptom wasn’t necessarily the system driver.

A more reliable approach is to build the capability to think well about improvement — to see what’s really happening, understand what the customer needs, consider the organisation’s direction, and make decisions that improve the whole system rather than one corner of it.

That’s the purpose of the two-day World Class Productivity Simulation. Day one creates an unforgettable experience of flow, waste and performance. Day two builds something more enduring: the ability to learn as a team and apply a repeatable method for choosing improvements that stick.

Even if you never attend the simulation, the principles below will strengthen your own improvement conversations.

1. The difference between activity and improvement

Many sites have no shortage of improvement activity. The real question is whether that activity is producing better system performance: more reliable output, improved quality and delivery, lower cost, safer work, and less firefighting. A simple test is to ask:

• What problem are we solving — and how do we know?

• What customer need does this improvement protect or enhance?
• Which part of the system will change — and what else will it affect?
• What will we measure to confirm it worked?

When teams can answer those clearly, improvement compounds. When they can’t, improvement often becomes “busy work” — lots of motion, limited lift.

2. Five practical thinking principles
3. a) Start with customer value.
   Local decisions can make sense — until you look from the customer’s perspective. Try adding one question to your daily meeting: “What did the customer need from us yesterday — and did we deliver it?”
4. b) Improve the system, not the symptom.
   Point solutions are tempting because they’re fast. But if the root cause sits elsewhere, symptoms return — often with extra complexity. When an issue appears, ask: “Is this the constraint — or a symptom of something upstream?”
5. c) Consider stakeholder needs (and hidden conflicts).
   Improvement often stalls because needs collide: Production wants output now; Quality wants stability; Engineering needs downtime windows; Planning wants schedule adherence; Operators need clarity and less rework. Before implementing change, ask: “Which two groups will this impact most — and have we involved them?”
6. d) Align improvements to direction and vision.
   Factories have more ideas than capacity to execute. Filter ideas through: Does it improve end-to-end flow? Does it lift delivery, quality, safety or cost measurably? Does it align to business priorities? Can we trial it quickly and safely? A simple exercise: bucket your top ideas into Must do / Should do / Nice to do — then ask, “What are we not doing so we can do the must-dos well?”
7. e) Use a repeatable learning cycle.
   Plan, deeply understand the situation, generate options and design counter measures. Do, trial deliberately. Check, review and learn, Act or Adjust, modify your approach if needed, standardise what works — then repeat. After any action on the process ask: “What did we learn?”
8. Why two days make the difference

The one-day experience creates energy and insight. The two-day experience builds capability — because it gives time to practise the thinking, evaluate trade-offs, and connect improvements to real workplace needs.

Participants leave with a stronger ability to see the system, a practical way to choose improvements, a shared language across roles, and a prioritised improvement list they can apply back at work. That’s better thinking — and it produces better results.

Next: In Article 3, we’ll explore how the digital version uses real-time data to accelerate learning — making variation and time loss visible and strengthening the link between process improvement and modern digital operations.

Neil Robinson
021 873 214 | neil.robinson@argonandco.com

The post Better thinking, better results: The two-day world class productivity simulation that builds capability appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Manufacturers need a clear view of emissions across their value chain to identify hotspots, manage risk and meet reporting requirements. The challenge is that supply chains are complex, with limited visibility beyond direct suppliers.

This makes scope 3 emissions difficult to quantify. Unlike scope 1 and scope 2, they are rarely measured directly and rely on estimates. Data is often incomplete or unavailable, especially early on. Waiting for perfect data is not realistic.

This is where spend-based emission factors come in. They use financial data to estimate emissions, allowing organisations to build a complete scope 3 baseline from the data they already have.

Using financial data to get emissions insight

Spend-based emission factors link financial data to greenhouse gas emissions. They express the average emissions associated with a dollar spent in a given category.

This approach uses national economic data and emissions data to estimate the average emissions per dollar spent. In practice, it allows manufacturers to use their existing spend data to estimate scope 3 emissions.

This is exactly how many organisations begin. Financial data is readily available, structured and complete. Using it as a starting point enables a rapid, economy-wide view of emissions without waiting for supplier engagement.

Photo by Cooper Hofmann on Unsplash

Why this approach resonates with manufacturers

Manufacturers operate across complex supply chains, often with a mix of domestic and imported inputs. Understanding upstream emissions in detail is challenging, particularly early on.

Spend-based emission factors address this by providing full coverage. Because they are built on national economic accounts and include import data, they capture emissions across both domestic production and international supply chains.

This completeness is one of their defining strengths. Every dollar spent is linked to emissions somewhere in the value chain.

They are also efficient. Organisations can apply them using existing accounting data, making them particularly suited to scope 3 categories such as purchased goods and services and capital goods

Starting with what already exists

In practice, most manufacturers start with their general ledger or supplier spend data.

GL codes are commonly used because they reflect the type of spend and align with internal financial processes.

Getting the boundaries right

Another area that is important is defining what is included. Spend-based emission factors are cradle-to-gate. This means they cover all upstream emissions associated with producing a good or service, including direct and indirect emissions and those embedded in imports. They do not cover downstream use or end-of-life impacts.

This makes them well suited to scope 3 categories such as purchased goods and services, but it also means that organisations need to be clear about exclusions in their own data.

Common steps include removing:

• employee salaries
• intercompany transactions
• items already captured in scope 1 or scope 2

This helps avoid double counting and supports consistency with reporting standards.

Focusing effort where it adds value

Another consistent lesson is the importance of materiality. In most cases, a relatively small number of categories drive the majority of emissions. Companies are encouraged to focus on these high-impact areas first and apply more detailed mapping where it matters most.

For the remaining lower-impact categories, a simplified approach can be used, such as applying an average emission factor derived from the main spend categories.  This balances effort with usefulness and reflects how many organisations apply the method in practice.

Understanding the limitations

Spend-based emission factors are based on industry averages and are not product-specific.  This means results can sometimes reflect price differences rather than physical changes. For example, paying more for the same product can result in higher reported emissions. This is a known limitation of the method and is important to understand when interpreting results.

From baseline to better data

As organisations mature, we recommend the apportion of a hybrid approach.

Spend-based emission factors are used to establish a complete baseline and maintain coverage across all categories. Over time, organisations replace them with more specific data where it improves accuracy.

This typically involves:

• engaging suppliers to obtain product or supplier-specific emissions data
• using activity data for emissions-intensive categories such as fuel and transport
• updating methodologies where higher-quality data becomes available

This approach aligns with reporting frameworks and good practice. It balances completeness with accuracy and supports continuous improvement.

Building a process that stands up to scrutiny

The initial effort is usually higher in the first year, but becomes more efficient over time.

Spending categories and mapping approaches tend to remain stable, even as emission factors are updated annually.

Documenting decisions, assumptions and exclusions helps ensure consistency and

A practical path forward

Spend-based emission factors provide a practical, well-established method to build a complete emissions profile using data that already exists within the business. They are grounded in national statistics, aligned with reporting standards and widely used in practice.

From there, organisations can refine their approach, focusing on the areas that matter most and improving data quality over time.

Ready to go further?

Download thinkstep-anz’s latest Emission Factors for New Zealand and explore in our updated FAQ how they can support your scope 3 reporting and decision-making.

www.thinkstep-anz.com

The post Making scope 3 manageable: how to use spend-based emission factors appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Why not investing still shows up on your P&L

Not many of us would say it out loud at the next networking event or Friday drinks.

The biggest barrier to growth in New Zealand manufacturing isn’t the banks, isn’t the government, and it isn’t Donald Trump. It’s us.

David Altana is Head of Growth &Partnerships at SmartSpace.ai & C0-Founder & Host of The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions

It’s the business owner who knows what needs to change but keeps the wallet closed. The operator who will spend sixty grand on a new ute without blinking, but won’t invest $5,000 in a consultant with the knowledge to fundamentally improve how the business runs.

Yes, the environment is genuinely difficult. A 15% tariff on New Zealand exports to the US, ongoing US-China trade tension rattling our largest trading partner, and renewed inflationary pressure on input costs driven by conflict in the Middle East. Add unemployment at 5.4%, near a decade high, and it’s no surprise consumer confidence is slipping.

Rob Bull is Director of the New Zealand Lean Academy. rob@nzla.nz

But this environment also creates the perfect alibi for doing nothing. And doing nothing is still a decision — one with real, measurable consequences.

Holding back feels sensible – But it isn’t

Of course hesitation feels rational right now. When uncertainty is everywhere, restraint looks like discipline.

Deferring a machine upgrade preserves cash. Pausing training protects short‑term capacity. Delaying external support feels responsible.

Inside businesses, that restraint shows up in familiar ways. Capital projects slide into the next quarter. Improvement initiatives lose momentum. Capability gaps are acknowledged, then tolerated.

Nothing dramatic happens — just a series of small deferrals that quietly become the status quo.

But financially, this isn’t neutrality. It’s a position, and one your competitors can see.

The Myth of the Safe Harbour

Here’s what the data shows about downturns and the businesses that emerge strongest. They are almost never the ones that cut deepest and waited longest. They are the ones that made targeted, deliberate investments through the cycle — in capability, equipment, people, and advice.

Those investments don’t eliminate risk. They shift it. From hoping demand returns to being ready when it does.

New Zealand manufacturing is, by several measures, approaching a turning point. The BNZ–BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index reached 56.1 in December 2025, its highest level in four years, and has remained firmly in expansion territory into 2026, sitting at 55.0 in February.

Business confidence hit a net 67 percent in November 2025 — an 11‑year high — while the NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion reported a net 39 percent of firms expecting better conditions, the most optimistic reading since 2014.

The OCR sits at 2.25 percent, the lowest level since the post‑pandemic emergency period.

While the recovery is uneven and fragile — it is real.

The question isn’t whether conditions will improve. It’s whether your business is positioned to capture that improvement, or still optimised for an already passing downturn.

Because while it may feel safer to sit tight, the gap doesn’t stay still.

The manufacturers who keep investing during uncertainty don’t just recover faster — they reset the baseline their competitors are forced to chase.

The return nobody calculates

Perhaps the question that offers the most insight is the one most manufacturers never ask

What is the return on not investing?

We scrutinise the ROI on a new press, a software system, or a hire. We demand certainty before we commit. That instinct is sensible. But it’s only half the calculation.

Almost no one sits down and honestly measures the cost of leaving things exactly as they are – the opportunity cost, the margin quietly lost to inefficiency, the work never won because capability wasn’t there when it mattered, the good people who drift away because nothing is moving forward.

None of that appears as a single line item, but it compounds all the same.

This is where caution becomes expensive. Standing still feels neutral, even responsible. It isn’t. It is an active decision – one that assumes the status quo will hold while competitors continue to invest, learn, and improve.

The manufacturers who pull ahead aren’t the ones who spend the least. They’re the ones who invest deliberately, at the right moments, and then execute. The gap that creates doesn’t announce itself. It simply widens.

How inaction actually shows up

When manufacturers look honestly at where momentum has stalled, the causes are rarely mysterious. External advice is deferred until there’s a problem instead of used to prevent one.

Ageing equipment is asked to carry a production schedule it was never designed for.

Leaders stop investing in their own capability just as the environment demands better judgement.

Good people sense the business isn’t going anywhere and quietly reassess their options. Systems that once coped now rely on workarounds, spreadsheets, and institutional memory.

None of this feels dramatic day to day. But together, it’s where margin leaks, opportunity is missed, and resilience quietly erodes.

Confidence is a choice – Even now

A mindset shift is required that no OCR cut or government initiative can deliver. It is the decision to believe that your business deserves to be excellent, not merely functional.

That the external environment – as genuinely difficult as it is – does not get to decide whether you grow or stall.

The manufacturers pulling ahead share a simple trait: they back themselves. They make the hire that stretches the budget. They bring in experienced perspective before the crisis, not after. They invest in equipment when it’s uncomfortable, not when it feels safe.

They keep developing their people and their leaders even when it means a short week on the floor. They do this because they understand something others resist – uncertainty isn’t temporary.

There will always be a trade war, an interest‑rate cycle, a geopolitical shock offering cover for delay. Waiting for the right moment is how capable businesses quietly fall behind.

We don’t have a capital problem. Borrowing costs are low. Business confidence is high. The money exists, and the conditions are as good as they’ve been in years. What’s missing is the confidence to deploy it.

Unlike tariffs, oil prices, or central bank policy, that’s one variable entirely within your control.

The question isn’t whether the environment will improve. It’s whether you’ll be ready when it does. That decision doesn’t start next year.

It starts with you and what you choose to back this quarter.

The post The most expensive decision you signed off appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

As global markets shift toward science-led, high-margin nutrition, New Zealand risks missing a significant opportunity in functional foods, reflecting a sector that has been slow to move beyond its traditional commodity mindset, writes Mark Devlin, director of Impact PR and NZ Manufacturer business advisor.

New Zealand is sitting on a high-value food innovation opportunity that it continues to under develop, as global food markets move away from commodity nutrition and toward targeted, function-driven products.

Much of the sector still exports raw ingredients, while higher-value product development, branding and margin are captured offshore.

Reports out of the US suggest that up to one-third of people may have low levels of a specific dairy-derived fatty acid should be viewed in that context – as an example of a potential opportunity for New Zealand manufacturers looking to take advantage of a broader shift in how food is understood, valued and commercialised.

The compound in question, C15:0 or pentadecanoic acid, is naturally present in dairy fat and certain fish and was historically overlooked in favour of broad classifications of dietary fat.

Current research is examining how individual fatty acids behave in the body, with studies linking higher circulating levels of odd-chain fatty acids to improved metabolic outcomes and lower risk of conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

At the centre of that shift is Dr Stephanie Venn-Watson, a veterinary epidemiologist who previously served with the World Health Organization and the US Navy and has spent much of her career advancing understanding of this nutrient.

Her research, including long-term analysis of ageing dolphin populations, identified C15:0 as one of the strongest markers associated with healthier metabolic profiles, lower inflammation and reduced metabolic dysfunction.

Those findings are directly relevant in New Zealand, where dairy consumption is shifting at the same time as rates of metabolic disease continue to rise.

Milk intake has declined to around 89 litres per person per year, while reduced-fat products and plant-based alternatives continue to gain share.

At the same time, rates of obesity remain high and diabetes continues to rise, creating a clear disconnect between evolving dietary habits and underlying health outcomes.

For decades, New Zealand’s manufacturing model has focused on producing at scale and exporting efficiently, particularly in dairy. That approach has built a globally competitive sector, but it has also meant that a significant share of downstream value, including formulation, intellectual property and branded health positioning, is captured offshore.

Recent moves to sell some of the country’s largest consumer dairy brands to offshore owners risk reinforcing this.

As those brands move further away from local control, the ability to vertically integrate, test and scale new value-added products based on emerging science becomes more limited, reducing the number of pathways through which innovation can move from research into market.

Food is now being assessed at a different level of precision, shifting attention away from broad categories such as protein, fat or carbohydrate and toward individual compounds with specific biological roles and measurable effects on metabolic function, inflammation and cellular health.

The whey story demonstrates how value is created when that shift is acted on early.

Once treated as a low-value by-product of cheese production, whey now underpins a global industry spanning sports nutrition, clinical supplementation and specialised food manufacturing.

What changed was the ability to isolate its functional components and build products around defined physiological benefits.

Almost 30 years ago, I was running a manufacturing and distribution business selling protein products as a health food. At the time, it was a niche dietary supplement.

Today, high-protein products are a standard feature across a large proportion of added-value food products on FMCG shelves. The shift from niche to mainstream took decades, but it created a category that now delivers substantial export value for New Zealand.

The same pattern is emerging again, with growing scientific understanding of specific compounds beginning to translate into early-stage commercial activity.

The science behind compounds such as C15:0 has advanced significantly, with research identifying roles in metabolic regulation, inflammation and cellular health, alongside early-stage commercialisation.

C15:0 is already being sold as a purified supplement. Whether it becomes part of broader food systems remains uncertain and will depend on testing, validation and commercial viability.

This is where New Zealand manufacturers have a clear opportunity to move earlier and capture value that is currently being realised offshore.

New Zealand food producers need to identify and assess nutritional breakthroughs far earlier, rather than waiting for them to mature offshore before deciding how they might be applied.

The issue is not simply whether compounds like C15:0 can be incorporated into functional foods, but whether local manufacturers are positioned early enough to explore, validate and commercialise those opportunities where they stack up.

The opportunity lies in understanding how specific components can be isolated, concentrated and applied in ways that align with emerging health needs and consumer demand.

This also requires recognising the limits of the current science. Increasing dairy fat intake may raise C15:0 levels and support aspects of vascular function, while also increasing other fatty acids linked to higher blood pressure.

The value sits in selectively applying what is beneficial, not in promoting broad consumption.

International investment in functional ingredients and nutraceutical pipelines is increasing, particularly across Europe, the United States and parts of Asia, where food, health and ageing are increasingly treated as part of the same system.

New Zealand has comparable raw material advantages, particularly in dairy, but has been slower to translate those into high-value, science-led products.

Functional food development sits at the intersection of food science, clinical research, regulatory compliance and advanced manufacturing, requiring coordination that extends well beyond traditional production models.

There has been a persistent tendency to treat innovation as incremental, focusing on product variation rather than repositioning within the value chain, an approach that is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in a market where differentiation is driven by scientific validation and measurable outcomes.

Continuing to export bulk ingredients will remain viable, but it will not capture the full value available. Capturing that value requires engaging earlier, where science, validation and product development intersect.

As healthcare systems come under increasing pressure, interest in preventative approaches that improve population health outcomes and reduce long-term costs continues to grow, with functional foods sitting squarely within that shift.

New Zealand has built a reputation for producing high-quality, trusted food products. The next step is to apply that credibility to more advanced, science-led products that capture greater value from what is already being produced.

The remaining question is whether New Zealand manufacturing is prepared to engage earlier in that cycle, or continue operating within a model that delivers volume while leaving a significant portion of value on the table.

The post New Zealand manufacturers leaving value on the table in functional foods appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.

Garry Green, Managing Director and Founder

 Tell readers what your company does

Quanton is an AI, automation and operational excellence business founded in 2016 with a clear purpose: empowering humanity for tomorrow’s technology, today.

We help ANZ organisations navigate digital transformation by making AI and automation work for people, not replace them. Our approach is pragmatic and technology-agnostic – we partner with Microsoft, Google Cloud and leading ai and automation platforms to deliver solutions that generate real business value.

We’ve delivered over 120 intelligent automation and AI programmes, releasing more than five million hours of benefits for our customers.

Our expertise spans financial services, manufacturing, infrastructure, utilities, government and logistics – anywhere organisations need to drive growth, productivity and profitability through smarter ways of working.

How are you currently seeing the transformation of business?

Business transformation today requires a layered approach. We see value delivered at three distinct levels: individual productivity, team performance and organisational capability.

At the individual level, AI tools are transforming how professionals work – meeting capture, document preparation, research and analysis.

At the team level, we’re seeing AI turbocharge sales performance, customer service and operational processes. At the organisational level, AI enables enterprise-wide compliance, quality assurance and strategic capability.

The organisations succeeding are those treating AI as business transformation, not just technology implementation. The technology rarely fails – it’s strategy, governance, change management and skills development where projects stall.

We consistently see that 70% of success comes from people, process and cultures with data foundations and technology accounting for 30%.

AI – how will it change what we do?

2026 is the year AI agents move from experimentation to production. Gartner predicts 40% of enterprise applications will embed AI agents by year-end, up from less than 5% in 2025.

These aren’t chatbots – they’re systems that reason through problems, take actions and learn from outcomes.

The biggest infrastructure investment in technology history is underway – over $700 billion committed by major tech companies this year alone.

The AI capabilities available to every business within 12-24 months will be dramatically more powerful and affordable than today.

For ANZ businesses, the message is clear: move quickly and adapt. The organisations that have built their strategy, data foundations and skills in advance will capitalise immediately. Those waiting will face expensive catch-up.

AI replacing staff is problematic – after all, where do the people go?

The World Economic Forum projects 170 million new roles created globally between 2025 and 2030, while 92 million will be displaced – a net positive of 78 million jobs.

The reality is more nuanced than headlines suggest.

Here’s what many overlook about New Zealand: we have a chronic skills shortage and significant brain drain. Record numbers of skilled Kiwis are leaving for Australia, while businesses report difficulty finding qualified talent.

AI isn’t displacing a surplus workforce – it’s helping us do more with the constrained talent we have.

The skills required are shifting. We need people who can orchestrate AI, exercise human judgment and manage human-AI collaboration. Organisations investing in upskilling alongside technology are building genuine competitive advantage.

The answer isn’t fewer people – it’s people working differently and more effectively.

 AI in a small country like NZ can remove 10% of employees. Where do they go next?

This framing misses New Zealand’s reality. Around a third of business leaders see lack of skilled workforce as a barrier to growth.

We’re importing staff to fill engineering, planning and healthcare roles because they simply aren’t available locally.

New Zealand has persistent skill shortages across construction, healthcare, engineering, IT and professional services. The 2025 Hays Skills Report shows above-average skills gaps in accountancy, HR, logistics and IT.

We’re not facing a surplus of workers displaced by AI – we’re facing a shortage that AI can help address.

The people “displaced” by automation aren’t going anywhere – they’re being redeployed to higher-value work we couldn’t previously resource.

AI literacy and human skills become more valuable, not less. The real risk isn’t displacement; it’s failing to enable your workforce with AI tools while competitors do.

 How are you finding current business conditions?

The last year has been tough across most sectors including ours. New Zealand’s economy contracted in 2024, and many businesses were in survival mode with significant global uncertainty creating headwinds.

Some were just surviving; others found money to invest in their future.

We’re now seeing conditions improve. Business confidence has rebounded sharply – reaching its highest level since 2014 according to NZIER’s latest survey. Lower interest rates are finally translating into real economic activity.

We’re seeing increased investment in AI and automation as organisations recognise they need operational improvements to compete. The smart businesses used the downturn to build foundations – we’re helping them to accelerate.

Where do you see opportunities for growth?

Two areas stand out: AI agents and AI enablement.

AI agents represent the next wave – autonomous systems that execute tasks, make decisions and collaborate with humans. The agent market is projected to grow significantly in 2025.

Organisations that master multi-agent orchestration will have major competitive advantages.

But here’s the gap we see: organisations are investing in AI technology without corresponding investment in people.

Every dollar spent on AI technology without enablement is money wasted.

The opportunity lies in enablement – building AI literacy and fluency across the organisation from executives to frontline staff. Our three-level AI enablement framework addresses this systematically: leadership capability to govern AI strategically, management skills to orchestrate human-AI workflows, and practical skills for everyone working with AI tools.

Technology is increasingly commoditised; human capability to deploy it effectively is the competitive advantage.

The post Focus on: Quanton appeared first on NZ Manufacturer.