The Times SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1942. Dairy Company Amalgamation

Manawatu Times, Volume 67, Issue 206, 29 August 1942, Page 4

The Times SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1942. Dairy Company Amalgamation

A belief in the slogan “The bigger the better,” appears to have inspired a proposal put forward at the annual meeting of the Cheltenham Co-op. Dairy Co. It was suggested that it would be to the interest of the industry and suppliers generally if the Manawatu district companies agreed to amalgamate. This is not the first occasiou upon winch such a suggestion has emanated from this quarter, and in view of the fact that the company concerned is the largest in the Manawatu area, and indeed the iargest in the Dominion excepting only certain big companies in the Auckland province, the authority for the proposal warrants serious consideration of it. This year its sponsors felt that war conditions, with their consequent change-overs to and from cheese manufacture, and now latterly the rigid zoning required on account of tyre shortage, warrant especial consideration of an amalgamation. At first sight there is some attraction in the proposal. It promises a reduction in overhead. And were there desire for it, there would be offered the opportunity for engaging in research work to the benefit of the industry, both in factory and on farm, concerning both manufacture of product and production of butterfat. Another point made by the proposers of amalgamation is that it would enable zoning to be more readily and happily accomplished. There was one somewhat unfortunate feature to the discussion, this being the inference that office-holders of other companies, such as directors and presumably paid servants, were opposing amalgamation despite the industry’s need for it, in obedience to personal interests. It is felt that such a suggestion is unjust and inacccurate. There are other reasons for opposition tt> amalgamation. Were amalgamation so ideal, then it would be impossible for misguided individuals long to defer it. The question is one that can be reasonably well settled by reference to tne Waikato, mere tnere is in existence an outstanding example of amalgamation in tne huge in.Z. wo-operative Dairy Company, witn a turnover of minions of pounds a year. It nas been in existence tor many years and Has uad tne most enterprising leadersnip. rivery opportunity that could be seen has oeen taken to reduce costs and, o± course, its size enabled it to employ whatever experts were thought desirable in its various activities. Yet on the record of actual acnievement, under the acid test of nett pay-out to suppliers, the company has proved no more successful than countless individual companies. Right within its own territory there have grown up, during the course of this amalgamation’s existence, a number of individual rivals. Apparently suppliers felt that there was a call for such individual companies; else they would not have supported them. And these individual companies have in turn liad to show results to hold their suppliers. This they have managed to do. They have, indeed, over a 10 years’ average, managed to make a shade better pay-out than the big company. In view of this actual example, it would appear that such advantages as amalgamation promises, are offset by disadvantages. Is it not that individual responsibility and loyalty to one’s own company, intangible though they be, are nevertheless of very real and practical value? So, for all the promises of benefit made by amalgamation, it would appear unwise for any sueh move to be here made until such time as it lias proved itself superior to the achievements of our individual factories. These are and have been of a very high order.