This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff University's institutional repository: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/110909/

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted to / accepted for publication.

Citation for final published version:

Nieuwenhuis, Paul 2018. Micro factory retailing: an alternative, more sustainable automotive business model. IEEE Engineering Management Review 46 (1) , pp. 39-46. 10.1109/EMR.2018.2810110 file

Publishers page: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2018.2810110

Please note: Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite this paper.

This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders. Micro Factory Retailing; an who regulate it (Wells and Nieuwenhuis Alternative, More Sustainable 2017). Automotive Business Model. Unfortunately, we have often found the business academic literature is somewhat out of touch with the latest developments In 2000 we launched a new alternative in the automotive sector. The academic automotive business model, Micro Factory literature on the sector appears more like Retailing (MFR), which, although still historical accounts than current account; marginal, has nevertheless already or able to contemplate alternative inspired a number of automotive business models. In view of this situation, businesses. MFR is based on networks of we found academic publishers and small dispersed, combined assembly, retail reviewers initially quite unreceptive to and aftercare or lifetime management (e.g. these ideas and decided to air them first to maintenance and repair, parts supply, business and practitioner audiences. This upgrade, vehicle management and took the form both of publications (Wells takeback) facilities that could operate and Nieuwenhuis, 2000) as well as use under a product-service system (PSS), conference papers to industry audiences. whereby ownership is retained by the These ideas were invariably well received, company and users pay for their use. although they did lead to many debates. Approximately 20 years on from when the MFR was a difficult sell, since examples and first germs of this innovative idea were precedents did not exist, which of course sown is a good time to revisit the concept are thin for most alternative business and its subsequent fortunes. This paper models. Similarly we were often asked, if traces through the early history of ideas these ideas are so good, then why do Ford and developments for MFR; to its current and not adopt them. situation and practice. Sustainability is a Again, the answer is obvious, as these major aspect of MFR. I present this work ideas run precisely counter to and in fact on the car and innovations from my challenge and undermine their existing experiences and growth in understanding. business models. We decided, therefore, to use academic conferences (e.g. Background on “Selling” the Micro- Nieuwenhuis 2002) and an academic book factory retailing business model as first steps in broadening the appeal of this alternative business model Our approach is unlike that of most (Nieuwenhuis and Wells, 2003), with business academics in that we are academic journal articles emerging much primarily sector specialists, rather than later (e.g. Wells and Orsato, 2005; discipline-based, or even discipline- Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou, 2015). focussed. The sector covers a range of activities and disciplines, from Origins – initial ideas engineering, design, marketing, human resource management, supply chain In 1996 I bought a new mountainbike and management, to politics and legislation. it occurred to me that here was a very This approach has also been evident from interesting business model. The company our methodology in that we maintain a whose name appeared on the frame – in continuous dialogue and exchange of ideas this case Proflex – actually made very little with the and those of this bike. Although the design was differentiation in the market, despite this theirs, as was the development work business model. Could this approach be behind the springs for their unique Girvin applied to automobiles? full suspension system, most of the rest came from named suppliers. Suppliers Environmental challenges to mass whose name remained on the product, production such as Mavic for the rims and Shimano for the gears. The bike itself was built in While many in the environmental Taiwan by a subcontractor. Due to its community – including academics – modularity, the bike could be upgraded in advocated an abandoning of the car as the various areas and in due course featured a only way forward on our quest for greater Selle Italia saddle, for example. In the sustainability, we felt this was a non- automotive industry – which is our starter. specialism – examples of this kind of work were very limited. You might see the name If people were going to persist in their of a design house – e.g. , Zagato pursuit of automobility, how could this be – on a car, or even ‘Handling by Lotus’ on delivered in the most sustainable manner? an Isuzu, and occasionally the name of a This was the era of Amory Lovins tuning firm such as Alpina or AMG, but ‘Hypercar’ concept (Lovins 1995; Von beyond this, the final assembler’s name, Weizsacker, et al. 1998); other initiatives BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Ford was such as the Clinton-Gore administration’s dominant. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) also existed. It was an era At this time, we were struggling to of much experimentation, including new understand mass car production and materials, which necessitated new traced this right back to its origins in the manufacturing techniques. GM’s EV-1 early 20th century. This review process electric sportscar, for example prompted involved extensive archival research in the creation of a completely new Europe and the US. It had struck us that manufacturing system, the Lansing Craft mass production was a barrier to Center, while mainstream car production sustainability in due to the sheer was also increasingly homing in on lower number of cars added to the planet’s roads volume manufacturing approaches (see each year. We were exploring possible Nieuwenhuis and Wells, 1997). alternative automotive business models, focussing in the first instance on However, it occurred to us that the existing appropriate manufacturing systems. ‘fire-and-forget’ mass production system also missed other tricks. Considering the This bike was a manufacturing system and lifetime income stream of a car, the actual business model that combined a degree of mass producers only managed to capture a mass production of standardised relatively small slice of revenue (Figure 1). components that was then shared by a Moving towards a new business model number of competitors. The bike firms still that, instead of generating income only retained their brand integrity and brand from selling cars, parts and finance, made awareness in the market despite doing money by capturing a much greater very little themselves. This vertically proportion of that lifetime value stream. disintegrated industry still managed to This holistic capturing of value seemed to show significant diversity and make a lot more sense, while at the same time easing that pressure to ‘move the possible. This approach was used by Ford metal’, which made the existing business to develop its Model T. model inherently unsustainable. The mass car production of today is very Figure 1 different from the way the Ford Model T was built at Highland Park, Michigan. The This new business would involve an Model T, was based on a modular integration of manufacturing and retailing approach to car making as used by the in a manner that did exist in the early years previous generation of craft builders: of the industry. It was essentially made separate and separate, wood- obsolete by the move to mass production, framed, coach-built, or ‘composite’ body. with its high levels of investment, Modern mass produced cars are made particularly in Budd-style all steel body quite differently. They use all-steel technology (Nieuwenhuis and Wells 2007) ‘monocoque’, or ‘unibody’ construction, and its attendant economies of scale. This whereby a structural metal box fulfils the situation forced the industry into functions of both body and chassis. This centralising manufacturing and separating technology was made possible by Budd manufacturing from retail and distribution. and Ledwinka’s invention, around 1912, of We were again looking at the core the all-steel welded body and the press technology of car making – the Budd all- and jig technology that came with it. Thus, steel body – as the principal barrier to a modern mass car manufacturing in many new business model. ways owes at least as much to Edward Budd and Joe Ledwinka, as to Henry Ford Budd’s all-steel body (Nieuwenhuis and Wells 2007, Nieuwenhuis, 2014). Cars started life as craft-made products in that they were made one-by-one manually Budd’s steel body technology requires very with each vehicle being different, and each high initial investments. But once these component being unique, as it was initial investments are made, low unit costs adapted to its neighbours in the at high volume production occur – each car subassembly. This method has often been made is cheaper than under the previous described as the ‘European System’. Very craft-based system. This idea is the basic rapidly, major suppliers were set up, economy-of-scale paradigm where a particularly in France, able to supply sufficient number of cars is made to recoup engines, gearboxes, axles and other key that very high initial investment. components, allowing standardisation Budd’s innovations therefore constitute (Jeal, 2012). This process also allowed the the basis for the economics of car making, number of brands to mushroom in the notably its economies of scale early years of the 20th century. (Nieuwenhuis and Wells, 2003, 2007). The The key building blocks of cars were now main change being from the manufacture readily available to all. Many firms of modular cars from largely in-house assembled cars from bought in components at Ford’s Highland Park plant, components and limited themselves to to the manufacture of steel bodies, adding their own name. The modular assembled into cars from largely construction of cars at this time made this outsourced components and sub- assemblies in a typical modern mass production car plant. If we consider how cars are made today making and painting of steel bodies. As and the investments required to make bodies tend to change far more often than them, it is clear that the largest areas of castings or powertrain components, these investment are in developing and making body-related investments have to be internal combustion engines, and in repeated regularly, with those elements making and painting bodies. It is the latter not replaced, at least reconfigured, more than the former that allows the reprogrammed and updated. These differentiation of cars in the market. investments are such and the resulting breakeven points so fundamental to the When we think of a car factory, we have in business of mass car production that these mind an assembly plant. A car assembly ‘Buddist’ investments, combined with plant’s primary activity is the making and investments in powertrain (engine and painting of car bodies and then assembling transmission) now determine the these into finished cars by using largely economics of car making. bought-in components. Many of the parts Ford spent so much effort into making The 1920s and 1930s were the key phase more efficiently are today sourced from for the roll-out of this technology. By 1925, suppliers. Modern car manufacturers Budd all steel technology already had a outsource some 60% to 80% of the value of 50% share of US body production their cars. Hence a modern car assembly (Courtenay, 1987: 22). This share was plant is typically subdivided into the largely due to the fact that in 1925 Ford following processes, which, combined with adopted Budd all-steel technology at its internal combustion engines, the industry new River Rouge facility, having earlier regards as its core activities: outsourced all its bodies due to its inability to mass produce them (Post, 1961). 1) Press shop – where the sheet steel is pressed into panels. With Ford’s and Budd’s innovations, mass car production was possible and the final 2) Body shop or Body-in-white – where element involved the means to create a these panels are welded together to mass car market. This was the contribution form bodies. of General Motors (GM), which introduced large-scale vehicle finance through its 3) Paint shop – where these steel bodies foundation in 1919 of the General Motors are painted. Acceptance Corporation. During the 1920s GM also introduced the trade-in as a down 4) Pre-assembly – where wiring and payment on a new car and the piping and other components are fitted manufacturer and dealer-run used car to the body, culminating in ‘the business. In addition to these innovations, marriage’ where the powertrain is GM developed the concept of a product mated with the ‘unibody’. range, allowing customers to gradually 5) Trim or Final assembly – after fitting trade up from a Chevrolet, via Oakland the powertrain (engine + transmission) (later Pontiac), Buick, Oldsmobile, La Salle, the car can be put on its wheels and to Cadillac. In addition, it focussed much finished inside and out. more on styling, colour – enhanced by Dupont’s majority shareholding in GM – The principal investments in an assembly and appearance and it promoted the idea plant involve the first three processes – the of planned obsolescence through the annual model change (Flink, 1988). The next step was the phasing out of the buses. Combining this characteristic with separate body and chassis; as both were more of the retail, distribution and now made of steel, they could be welded aftermarket activities, appeared to be together into a light and stiff box-like more profitable. structure, the ‘monocoque’ or ‘unibody’. While it brought the need for greater The advantages are several. First of all, the accuracy as well as the problem of abandoning of Budd all-steel body assembling the car after the unibody was technology avoids the very high built – which requires greater care on the investments in capital equipment needed part of assembly workers to avoid damage for this (press shop, press tools, body-in- to the painted body – its advantages in white, paint). Although this step meant terms of weight, structural integrity and abandoning high volume production, it manufacturability were such that today does allow for a dispersed network of local nearly all mass produced cars are made in assembly facilities. This network could be this fashion (Nieuwenhuis and Wells, rooted in local communities, cater for local 2003). Because of the exceptionally high tastes and needs, but could benefit from capital investments involved, it forced the economies of scale in components and industry into a production-led business subassemblies such as powertrain that model whereby the entire model came to could be shared by a number of notionally be driven by the needs of the competing manufacturers. This idea is manufacturing system. much like the mountainbike model. Ironically, Ford used a not dissimilar model Toyota’s ‘lean’ production merely refined for the Model T, which – consisting as it did this model by re-integrating it more closely of a set of mechanical components, but no with the market, but it is still not truly body – was often shipped to local markets demand-driven. Plants have to produce at as a kit for local assembly and for locally- levels sufficient to reach the economies of made bodies to be fitted. scale inherent in these high capital investments, whatever the demand for The term Micro Factory Retailing (MFR) their products. was coined for this new model. This seemed like an apropos term and the term has stuck. We then began to refine and Alternative Automotive Production nuance the business model. We found that Models some low volume manufacturers already used elements of the new model. Sabel and Zeitlin (1985, 1997) have pointed out that mass production was not an In this context our UK base was helpful, as inevitable outcome of developments in the firms like and th early 20 century. Alternatives were and Lotus are of particular interest. Contrary to could have been equally viable. Eighty popular belief, their products – despite years or so on, one option seemed to be being built in much lower numbers – are no abandoning the all-steel body by revisiting more expensive than their mass produced some of these alternatives and possibly or volume produced competitors. In adopting different car manufacturing essence, they have offset high capital technologies. These new technologies investment against higher investment in were normally reserved for low volume, skilled labour. The only penalty is an high end cars such as Ferrari, , inability to produce at higher volumes, but Rolls-Royce, as well as heavy trucks and also the absence of any need to produce in managed through waiting lists – a process high volumes to recoup their investment used by Morgan. This situation also costs. Here lay the core of a new business ensures continuity of both production and model. employment.

Micro Factory Retailing • The incremental expansion of capacity means that new plants can be added to The Morgan Motor Company business develop new markets, while new products model relies on making low volumes of or variants can be introduced durable cars tailored to the requirements incrementally, resulting in risk reduction. of individual customers (Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou, 2015). In a world increasingly in • Customers can be shown around the plant need of sustainable consumption and and meet the people who make their car, production, this business model resonates. and can thereby feel ‘closer’ to the This resonance exists, despite the fact that product. This has long been a feature of Morgan’s business model dates back a the Morgan approach, and is even used by hundred years. more mainstream volume car makers trying to build brand loyalty: including About 60-70 million cars are produced Mercedes-Benz, VW, Porsche, and BMW. worldwide each year, a practice that is clearly unsustainable. In the longer term, if • The factory becomes the location for car making is to survive, then all car repair, spare parts, upgrading, restoration manufacturers will have to move towards and modification. This allows the a business model closer to that of low manufacturer to tap into the elusive but volume manufacturers. Lower volumes potentially very profitable aftermarket would be produced, but the business revenue stream, while allowing the car to would survive by helping keep the cars on ‘grow’ with its owner thereby enhancing the road after the initial sale, extending the retention and vehicle lifespans for greater life of the automobile. sustainability.

Morgan produces fewer than 1500 cars a • The factory can undergo a transition over year. Morgan can be regarded as using a time from an essentially new car partial version of Micro Factory Retailing, production focus, to one more involved in or MFR (Wells and Nieuwenhuis 2000; service and repair. Thus, the factory does Nieuwenhuis and Wells 2003, 2009). The not depend solely on the sale of new cars. MFR business model offers a number of Cars has exploited this model well key advantages over Ford-Budd style mass (Parsons, 2002; Balfour, 2009). production. These advantages make it inherently more sustainable in economic, • The inherent flexibility of small-scale social and environmental terms. Some of manufacturing provides better customer the main reasons and MFR characteristic care, as well as shorter lead times, and late for these advantages include: configuration.

• Investments in productive capacity – a • The model builds stronger worker micro factory would typically have a commitment to the product and to capacity of around 5,000 units a year – are customers. This results in more satisfying incremental, expandable in line with work for staff, and better quality levels market demand. Surplus demand is with all the benefits this entails. It also builds higher skill levels in local communities. Even at an early industrial development stage this alternative business model • This manufacturing approach can take seems to have gained interest. After advantage of local small scale suppliers presenting these ideas at industry events adding content appreciated by local and publishing in practitioner journals, markets. At the same time, modular supply businesses, potential start-ups and existing strategies combined with commodity or low volume manufacturers approached us off-the-shelf purchasing can reduce cost with a keen interest in the MFR model. and achieve economies of scale where these are most appropriate, such as in Using our established methodology (Wells powertrain – with the advent of electronic and Nieuwenhuis, 2017) we ended up vehicles, increasingly: batteries, working on an iterative basis with a controllers and electric traction motors. number of firms, with varying degrees of contact and regularity of meetings. These • Modular construction allows quick and firms include Morgan Motor Co., Gordon easy product up-grades. Thus, Murray Design – whose ‘i-Stream’ technologies that meet the latest manufacturing model was inspired by environmental and safety standards can MFR, Welsh hydrogen car developer often be retrofitted – a major area of Riversimple and American open-source car obsolescence in the current system – while design company Local Motors. All of these the vehicle can also be tailored to changing organizations could envision the MFR customer needs and wants. model benefits from multiple perspectives and reasons. They adapted and adopted Small scale manufacturing processes have • elements of MFR, or used our work to a lower environmental impact compared justify their existing business model. with traditional high-volume manufacturing (Schumacher 1973). Lower The justification of their existing business site impact: a modern car plant occupies was particularly the case for UK low several square kilometres of land. volume specialist producers who often Compared with this, Morgan operates struggled to convince potential investors – from a classic ‘light industrial’ facility. more used to the economics of mass MFR facilities meet social and political production car companies – that their objectives by creating local employment in business model was viable. Riversimple is high-value manufacturing activities. At a advocating a product-service system (PSS) time when mass production jobs are being approach as part of its business model. globalised, the MFR approach makes a key They have enhanced the MFR concept by adding a novel governance approach that contribution in retaining those skills and includes a body of 6 ‘custodians’ who adding value within the local market. The represent different stakeholders, such as MFR facility does not necessarily sell the the Environment, Customers, the local car, but would be equally viable as community, staff investors and manager of a product-service system, commercial partners/suppliers. These act whereby it would own the car and sell a mobility service to the user under a as an independent body guiding the leasing-style arrangement. business. Riversimple argues this allows them to ‘see in all directions’ (Riversimple, Impact of MFR 2017). In conclusion, in any future sustainable Local Motors has enhanced the model by automotive ecosystem, therefore, we recruiting potential buyers as product would envisage a version of micro factory developers on an open-source design retailing as being one of the dominant basis. It has also pioneered the use of business models for the supply and use of additive manufacturing in this context and motorised personal mobility. has in fact adopted the term ‘microfactories’ for their dispersed MFR is based on networks of small network of facilities dispersed, combined assembly, retail and (https://localmotors.com/microfactories/) aftercare or lifetime management (e.g. . Such contact with industry has allowed us maintenance and repair, parts supply, to refine at least aspects of the model over upgrade, vehicle management and the intervening years (e.g. Wells and takeback) facilities that could operate car Orsato, Wells, 2013, Nieuwenhuis 2014, use under a product-service system (PSS) Nieuwenhuis and Katsifou, 2015). whereby ownership is retained by the company and users pay for their use. Responses from the academic community were initially less sympathetic; and more This business model would supply local critical. Holweg and Pil (2004, 194), for markets, sourcing from local suppliers, example, directly challenged the idea as while being rooted in local economies and presented in Wells and Nieuwenhuis in tune with local needs. MFRs would also (2000). Recent academic work tends to be source standardised modules globally from more positive towards the feasibility of larger, more centralised facilities that distributed manufacturing models, at least would be able to achieve economies of in the longer term. Holmström et al. scale in modules such as powertrains, for (2016), for example, recognise the example. This process could entail some inevitable outcome of developments such transport over longer distances, although as additive manufacturing on future this would involve smaller subassemblies manufacturing models. and modules, rather than complete cars. In fact, it could easily be applied not just to There are other socio-economic industrial private cars, but also to more dedicated evolutions such as other more shared car-club cars (e.g. Autolib’s decentralising trends in the economy. Bluecar), dedicated taxis, or public Distributed electricity generation through transport modes such as buses, or small dispersed wind farms, solar panels commercial vans for local conditions. on house roofs, as well as trends towards The cost of transport and supply chain smaller manufacturing units in a range of complexity for shared mass produced industries including tyres, steel and components and subassemblies would brewing are all examples (Wells, 2013). In have to be offset by the advantages of this respect, then, although Holmström et economies of scale. It is conceivable for al. (2016) present their paper as merely some of the mass car manufacturers in the setting a future research agenda in this current mass production industry to area, the MFR concept appears to be become module suppliers in such an gaining increasing credibility even in alternative model. It is even conceivable academia. that some of these mass producers Conclusions become MFRs themselves, or spin off existing MFR-like operations to become their core activities, although the precise a long period of apparent stability (Walker nature of the product would have to and salt, 2006; Perrings 1998). It is also change as well to more environmentally important to note that as the existing optimized vehicles (Nieuwenhuis and system becomes less able to fulfil the Wells, 1997, chapter 7). needs of the market or the economy in the broadest sense, change becomes Also in a PSS the actual cost of the product inevitable. is less important, as this can be recovered over several leases over many years – As Perrings (1998, 506) observes: ‘The durability and upgradability become key economic value of a system in some state criteria – the need for a ‘cheap’ car is depends on its ability to maintain the flow therefore much reduced, making of goods and services for which it is valued expensive new technologies more viable, given the shocks or disturbances it faces. as is suggested by the Riversimple business The source of disturbances may be either model (Riversimple, 2017). anthropogenic or “natural”’.

One of MFR’s main distinguishing features In our context we could see these in relation to the current mass production disturbances as being generated by the system is that it would break through the dual forces of market pressure and the ‘monoculture’ of large centralised need for greater sustainability. Peterson factories making a standardised, relatively (2000) discusses a model for ecosystem undifferentiated product in very large change first proposed by Holling (1986) numbers and at relatively low cost. Low and developed further by Gunderson et al. cost and manufacturing-push make these (1995). Their cycle moves through rapid cars effectively disposable, with short growth, conservation, collapse and useful life-spans of only 10-15 years. These reorganisation. In the stable phase – the large facilities draw on global supply Ford-Budd automotive system during the networks and supply global markets. They 1950s and 1960s for example – the system may be compared with the farms of the becomes increasingly dependent on the wheat-belt of the US and Canadian prairies persistence of its existing structure. This in that they too are monoculture-based, makes it vulnerable to anything that might supply world markets with cheap upset it by releasing its organised capital. standardised grain and draw in supplies – This kind of system is increasingly stable, in the form of oil based pesticides, but, Peterson (2000) argues, over a herbicides and fertilisers – along global decreasing range of conditions and this supply lines. This model too is now therefore reduces the resilience of the considered by an increasing number of system. In this respect, then, as the current observers to be ultimately unsustainable system has largely favoured efficiency over (Benyus, 1997; Diamond, 2005). Jeffries resilience (Walker and Salt 2006) it may (1997, 5) gives the example of the ultimately not need a massive shock to monoculture of potatoes in Ireland in the prompt its transition to an alternative 1840s and the resulting famine as an system. The latter may well involve the example of the negative consequences of MFR business model in view of its greater such an approach in agriculture. inherent sustainability in social, environmental, but also ultimately in The change process from mass production economic terms. to MFR is difficult to predict, however, as system change may happen suddenly after References Jeal, M. (2012), ‘Mass Confusion; The beginnings of the volume-production of Balfour, C. (2009) Bristol Cars; A Very motorcars’, Automotive History Review, British Story, Sparkford: Haynes. 54, Autumn, 34-47.

Benyus, J. (1997), Biomimicry; Innovation Jeffries, M. (1997), Biodiversity and Inspired by Nature, New York NY: Conservation, London: Routledge. HarperCollins. Lovins, A. (1995) Hypercars: the next Courtenay, V. (1987), Ideas That Move industrial revolution, Keynote address to America…The Budd Company at 75, Troy the 1995 Automobile Distribution and MI: The Budd Company. Servicing Conference, Brussels, 5 december. Diamond, J (2005), Collapse; How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, London: Penguin. Nieuwenhuis, P. (2002) Is Sustainable Car Making Possible?, paper presented to Xth Flink, J. (1988), The Automobile Age, International Greening of Industry Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Network Conference, June 23-26, Gothenburg, Sweden. Post, D. (1961), A Tour of the Remarkable Ford Industries During the Days when the Nieuwenhuis, P. (2014) Sustainable end Product was the Matchless Model A, Automobility; Understanding the Car as a Arcadia CA: Post Motor Books (reprint of Natural System, Cheltenham: Edward Ford original of 1929) Elgar.

Gunderson, L., C. Holling and S. Light Nieuwenhuis, P. and Katsifou, E., (2015), (1995), ‘Barriers broken and bridges built’, More sustainable automotive production in: L. Gunderson, C. Holling and S. Light through understanding decoupling points (eds) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal in leagile manufacturing, Journal of of Ecosystems and Institutions, New York: Cleaner Production, 95, 232-241. Columbia University Press. Doi.org/10/1016/jclepro2015.02.084.

Holling, C. (1986), ‘The resilience of Nieuwenhuis P. and Wells, P. (1997) The terrestrial ecosystems; local surprise and Death of Motoring?; Car Making and global change’, in: W. Clark and R. Munn Automobility in the 21st Century, (eds), Sustainable Development of the Chichester: John Wiley. Biosphere, Cambridge: University Press. Nieuwenhuis P & P Wells (2003), The Holmström, J.; Holweg, M.; Khajavi, H.S. Automotive Industry and the Environment and Partanen, J. (2016) The direct digital – A technical, business and social future, manufacturing (r)evolution: definition of a Cambridge: Woodhead ISBN 1 85573 713 2 research agenda, Operations Management and Boca Raton FL: CRC Press ISBN 0-8493- Research, 9(1), 1-10. 2072-0.

Holweg, M. and Pil, F. (2004), The Second Nieuwenhuis, P & Wells, P (2007) ‘The all- Century; Reconnecting Customer and steel body as a cornerstone to the Value Chain through Build-to-Order, foundations of the mass production car Cambridge MA: MIT Press. industry’ Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 16, Nr. 2, 183-211, Von Weizsacker, E., Lovins, A. and Hunter doi:10.1093/icc/dtm001. Lovins, L., (1998) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use - The New Nieuwenhuis, P. and P. Wells (2009), Car Report to the Club of Rome, London: Futures: Rethinking the Automotive Routledge. Industry Beyond the American Model, www.trendtracker.co.uk . Walker, B. and D. Salt (2006), Resilience Thinking; Sustaining Ecosystems and Parsons, D. (2002), The Sustainability of People in a Changing World, Washington: Alternative Economic Theories: The British Island Press. Luxury Specialist Car Manufacturing Sector & Bristol Cars Ltd, unpublished MBA Wells, P. (2013), Business Models for dissertation, Cardiff University. Sustainability, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Perrings, C. (1998), ‘Resilience in the Wells P & P Nieuwenhuis (2000) ‘Why big Dynamics of Economy-Environment business should think small’, Automotive Systems’, Environmental and Resource World, July/August, 32-38. Economics, 11(3-4), 503-520. Wells, P. and Nieuwenhuis, P. (2017) Peterson, G. (2000), ‘Political ecology and Operationalising deep structural ecological resilience: An integration of sustainability in business: longitudinal human and ecological dynamics’, immersion as extensive engaged Ecological Economics, 35, 323-336. scholarship, British Journal of Management, Vol. 28, 45-63. Riversimple (2017) DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12201. http://www.riversimple.com/how-the- business-works/ Wells, P. and Orsato, R. (2005) Product, process and structure: redesigning the Sabel, C. and J. Zeitlin (1985), ‘Historical industrial ecology of the automobile, The alternatives to mass production: politics, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(3), 1-16. markets and technology in nineteenth- century industrialization’, Past & Present, 108 (August), 133-176.

Sabel, C. and J. Zeitlin (1997), World of Possibilities; Flexibility and Mass production in Western Industrialization, Studies in Modern Capitalism, Cambridge: University Press.

Schumacher, E (1973), Small is Beautiful; Study of Economics as if People Mattered, London: Sphere.