Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK - summary report

THE FUTURE OF
MANUFACTURING:
A NEW ERA OF OPPORTUNITY
AND CHALLENGE FOR THE UK
SUMMARY REPORT

THIS REPORT SHOULD BE CITED AS:

Foresight (2013). The Future of Manufacturing:
A new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK
Summary Report
The Government Office for Science, London
For further information about the Project, and for the detailed
Project Report on which this Summary Report is based, please visit:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight

THE FUTURE OF
MANUFACTURING:
A NEW ERA OF OPPORTUNITY
AND CHALLENGE FOR THE UK
SUMMARY REPORT

THIS REPORT IS INTENDED FOR:

Policy-makers, legislators, a wide range of business people, and
the professionals and researchers whose interests relate to the
manufacturing sector. This Report focuses on manufacturing as
a whole with a particular emphasis on the United Kingdom.

The Government Office for Science would like
to thank the Project’s Lead Expert Group who
oversaw the technical aspects of the Project and
were involved in writing this report. They were
led by Sir Richard Lapthorne CBE, and are
Professor Nicholas Crafts, Professor Steve Evans,
Professor Anne Green, Professor Richard Harris,
Professor Alan Hughes, Professor Chris Lowe,
Dr Hamid Mughal, and Professor Sir Michael Sterling.
Particular thanks are also due to the Project’s
High Level Stakeholder Group which was chaired
by the Rt. Hon. Vince Cable MP, the Secretary of State
for Business Innovation and Skills, and the many officials,
experts and stakeholders from the UK and around
the world who contributed to the work of this Project,
who reviewed the many Project reports and papers,
and who generously provided advice and guidance.
The Foresight project team was led by Paul McCaffrey
and also included Michael Andrea,Tomasz Ciuksza,
Dr Emily Eakins, Derek Flynn, Sejal Mahida, Lucy Martin,
Chris Miles, Moh Shabier, Professor Sandy Thomas and
Emma Tredgett.
The Foresight Programme in the UK Government
Office for Science is under the direction of the
Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government.
Foresight strengthens strategic policy-making in
Government by embedding a futures approach.

The contents of this Report do not represent
the views or policy of the UK or any other government.

6

A NEW VISION FOR
UK MANUFACTURING
Manufacturing in 2050 will look very different from
today, and will be virtually unrecognisable from that of
30 years ago. Successful firms will be capable of rapidly
adapting their physical and intellectual infrastructures to
exploit changes in technology as manufacturing becomes
faster, more responsive to changing global markets and
closer to customers.
Successful firms will also harness a wider skills base,
with highly qualified leaders and managers whose
expertise combines both commercial and technical
acumen, typically in science, technology, engineering
or mathematics.
Constant adaptability will pervade all aspects of
manufacturing, from research and development to
innovation, production processes, supplier and customer
interdependencies, and lifetime product maintenance
and repair. Products and processes will be sustainable,
with built-in reuse, remanufacturing and recycling for
products reaching the end of their useful lives. Closed
loop systems will be used to eliminate energy and water
waste and to recycle physical waste.
These developments will further emphasise the key
role of physical production in unlocking innovative
new revenue streams, particularly as firms embrace
'servitisation' and manufacturers make use of the
increasing pervasiveness of 'Big Data' to enhance
their competitiveness.
In the public sector, policy frameworks that affect the
manufacturing sector directly and indirectly will need
to recognise the extended nature of value creation
and the new ways it is being developed. Public planning
cycles should match the timescales of firms' own long
term planning requirements. And it will be important
that flows of highly skilled workers, patient capital, and
support to promote critical mass in small and medium
sized enterprises are all internationally competitive.
The implications for UK manufacturing firms and the
UK Government are substantial. Some businesses are
already adapting and are world class, but many are not
positioned to succeed in a future world where greater
opportunities will be balanced by greater competition.

The UK needs to radically change its approach to
providing a constant and consistent framework within
which all firms aspire to prosper.
A business-as-usual approach will not deliver that
outcome. Other economies are already ahead, and
catching up will require an adaptive capacity that
the UK has not yet demonstrated. Achieving this
is essential, as the future competitiveness and health
of UK manufacturing will affect many other parts
of the economy through its numerous linkages.
The key message is that there is no easy or immediate
route to success, but action needs to start now to build
on existing support, and to refocus and rebalance it for
the future. Above all, policy design will need to address
entire system effects. This Report sets out many
areas where action is needed at both strategic
and more detailed levels. However, the following
should be particular priorities.
The quality and skills of the workforce will be a critical
factor in capturing competitive advantage. It is essential
that UK policy makers focus on the supply of skilled
workers, including apprenticeship schemes, support
for researchers, and the supply of skilled managers.
Firms will need to pay much more attention to building
multidisciplinary teams to develop increasingly complex
products, and also innovative business models.
It will also be crucial to address the current image
associated with manufacturing. Here government and
industry should work together to further promote and
market the opportunities for careers in manufacturing
industries at all levels of education.
Financial challenges for the sector include a shortage
of risk capital. This is particularly evident as a funding
gap between research and early development and the
funding for proof of concept that is usually required
before the market steps in. There is also a shortage
of funding for applied research and development in
some areas such as the development of advanced
green energy sources. So although there are excellent
schemes for public support such as Knowledge Transfer
Partnerships, funding of the Technology Strategy Board,

The future of manufacturing: A new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK

and public private partnerships such as the Energy
Technologies Institute, these are much smaller than in
competitor nations. Addressing this mismatch should be
a priority.
Recent years have seen a resurgence in the
development of industrial policies by governments
in the UK and overseas. In the UK, industrial policies
have been developed in 11 sectors, led in most cases
by groups from the public and private sectors, with
many of these encompassing manufacturing industries.
One specific development has been the creation of
the Catapult Centres. In particular, the High Value
Manufacturing Catapult provides a strong base on
which to build substantial further effort. It is
recommended that its funding is substantially increased,
and used in part to encourage the greater involvement
of smaller firms in particular.
Whilst specific initiatives are essential in areas
mentioned above, more is needed. Recognition that the
UK's national infrastructure suffered from fragmented
policy making led to the creation of Infrastructure UK
(IUK). Manufacturing suffers from similar challenges
and is no less strategic for the future strength and
resilience of the UK economy. The Lead Expert Group
of this Foresight Project considers that a similar office
to the IUK is needed for Manufacturing. This would be
responsible for helping Government to formulate longterm policies that would take into account the extended
value chain associated with manufacturing industries.
It should be staffed by experts, preferably with
substantial successful industry experience. They would
consider all of the issues highlighted in this Report,
and develop and assist Government with piloting new
policies. A UK Office for Manufacturing would need
to work closely with IUK, in view of the importance
of infrastructure to manufacturing. It would also need
to work closely with industry, particularly to improve
skills and increase the ability of companies to innovate
by working with relevant partners. Other countries
including the United States and Australia have developed
relevant offices from which the UK can learn.

In summary, manufacturing is too important to leave to
its own devices. The Lead Expert Group for this project,
comprising Academic and Industry leaders commend
this Report to Government, together with its associated
analysis and evidence underpinning its conclusions.

Sir Richard Lapthorne
Chair, Project Lead Expert Group

Sir Mark Walport
Government Chief Scientific Adviser

7

8

PREFACE
It is surely unique in Europe, if not globally, for
a Government to commission a strategic look at
the future of manufacturing as far ahead as 2050.
This report – involving some 300 leading
business people, experts and policy makers from
25 countries – sets out a vision of manufacturing
that is very different to what we recognise today.
Clearly, both industry and Government need to
prepare for what will be considerable opportunities
and challenges ahead.
The importance of manufacturing to the UK
economy, as set out here, is incontrovertible.
Manufacturing is no longer just about production,
it is a much wider set of activities that create
value for the UK and benefits for wider society.
Manufacturing includes significant innovation. It
creates jobs that are both highly skilled and well
paid. It also contributes to the rebalancing of the
economy, with its strong role on exports and
import substitutions.
Through the Government's industrial strategy
we are already working with business on
long-range plans to strengthen advanced
manufacturing sectors such as automobiles,
aerospace, life sciences and energy supply
chains. We are developing the UK's ability
to commercialise new technology and expand
our skills base.

There are many UK manufacturing firms that
are world class. Indeed, manufacturing leads
other sectors in many areas, including productivity,
exports and research and development. There
is no room for complacency, however.
The analysis and advice contained in this report
will help Government to take its support for
manufacturing to another level. My officials will
be working with the project experts to work
out next steps. I look forward to seeing how their
conclusions help Government and industry to
harness the full potential of UK manufacturing.

The Rt. Hon. Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills


9

CONTENTS

A New Vision for UK Manufacturing –
introduction by Sir Mark Walport and
Sir Richard Lapthorne

6

Preface by the Rt. Hon. Vince Cable MP

8

Contents

9

Project Background

10

1

Manufacturing matters

12

2

Four key future characteristics
of manufacturing and implications
for Government

18

2.1 Faster, more responsive and closer

to customers

20

2.2 Exposed to new market opportunities

24

2.3 More sustainable

28

2.4 ncreasingly dependent on highly
I
skilled workers

31

Three systemic areas for future
Government focus

34

3.1 Taking a more integrated view of

value creation in the manufacturing
sector

36

3.2 argeting specific stages of the
T
manufacturing value chain

37

3.3 nhancing Government capability in
E
evaluating and coordinating policy
over the long term

38

Conclusions

40

Annexes

42

A. References

44

B. List of evidence papers

48

C. ndustry High Level Stakeholder
I
Group members

50

D. Lead Expert Group members

52

3

4

10

Project Background

PROJECT
BACKGROUND

PROJECT AIM
This has been to take a long term and strategic look
at manufacturing out to 2050, to:
dentify and analyse important drivers of change
I
affecting the UK manufacturing sector;
dentify important challenges and opportunities
I
that lie ahead and which require action by
Government and industry; and
dvise how Government policy needs to be
A
refocussed and rebalanced so that it is better
positioned to support the growth and resilience
of UK manufacturing over coming decades.
In so doing, a specific aim is to inform further
development of the Government’s industrial
and sector strategies.
WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED:
The 2-year Project has been run by the Foresight
Programme in the UK Government Office for
Science, under the personal direction of the
Government Chief Scientific Adviser: formerly

Professor Sir John Beddington and, since April 2013,
Sir Mark Walport.The Rt. Hon.Vince Cable MP
,
the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and
Skills, has sponsored the project and chaired an
Industry High Level Stakeholder Group (Annex C)
which provided strategic advice.The Project has based
its analysis on the very best evidence.Throughout,
it has been overseen by a multi-disciplinary Lead
Expert Group (Annex D) drawn from business and
academia, chaired by Sir Richard Lapthorne, Chairman
of Cable Wireless Communications plc. In addition,
it has involved some 300 industry and academic
experts, business leaders and stakeholders, from 25
countries.They have contributed to 37 peer-reviewed
technical evidence papers and provided a wide
range of insights and advice.Valuable international
perspectives were provided at workshops held
in Asia, Europe and the US.
The Project Report, on which this Summary Report
is based, and all supporting material is available at:
www.bis.gov.uk/foresight


This study is unique within Europe both in terms of its scope and
its time frame which looks out to the year 2050. It will help Nissan
to tune its product offerings and production processes to better meet
likely demographic and market trends. I am very encouraged by the efforts
of the UK government to support manufacturing and this report builds on
the excellent Automotive and Aerospace industrial strategies recently published
by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
John Martin
Senior Vice President – Manufacturing, Purchasing Supply Chain Management
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

11

12

1. Manufacturing matters

1. MANUFACTURING
MATTERS

Manufacturing is essential for long term economic
growth and economic resilience. However, many of
its characteristics are changing profoundly. Physical
production processes are increasingly at the centre
of much wider value chains.


13


14

A POWERFUL CONTRIBUTION TO
THE UK ECONOMY
Manufacturing is and must continue to be an essential
part of the UK economy. Its benefits include:
bsolute value: The contribution of
A
manufacturing to UK Gross Domestic
Product (£139 billion in 2012) is still
significant1 and increasing over the long term2.
esearch and Development (RD):
R
Manufacturing businesses are more likely
to engage in RD. 41% of manufacturing
businesses with ten or more employees
allocated resources to RD in 2010 compared
with an average of 23% of businesses in other
sectors. Throughout 2000-2011, 72%-79%
of total UK business RD expenditure was
associated with manufacturing3.
nnovation: Manufacturers are more likely
I
to innovate. In 2010, 26% of manufacturing
businesses with ten or more employees carried
out process innovation compared with less
than 14% for non-manufacturers, and 44%
undertook product innovation (less than 26%
for non-manufacturers)4.
roductivity: The growth in total factor
P
productivityi for manufacturing has been 2.3%
per year between 1980 and 2009, compared
with 0.7% per year for the UK as a whole5.
Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is defined as the increase in output that
is not due to an increase in the direct inputs used to produce goods
and services (i.e. labour, physical capital and intermediate inputs). Rather
it is the more efficient use of these inputs.
i

xports: Manufacturing businesses are more
E
likely to engage in exporting. UK exports of
goods produced by the manufacturing sector
totalled £256 billion in 2012, accounting for
around 53% of all UK exports6. In 2010, 60%
of manufacturing businesses with ten or more
employees exported products and services
compared with 26% of non-manufacturers7.
ighly skilled jobs: In 2011, remuneration in UK
H
manufacturing was 10% higher in comparable
occupations compared with the average across
all industries8, reflecting the high levels of skills
required in modern manufacturing roles.

nter-industry linkages: Manufacturing performance
I
affects other sectors through its wide range of
input-output and other linkages9.
conomic resilience: Economies with strong,
E
export-led manufacturing sectors typically
recover from recessions faster than those
without equivalent manufacturing sectors10.
A DIVERSE SECTOR WITH A CONTEXT OF
HISTORICAL SHIFTS
The UK manufacturing sector is diverse, with
activities ranging from aerospace, pharmaceuticals,
chemicals and automotives to food and drink.
It is characterised by a wide range of sizes of firm,
with a disproportionate share of activity accounted
for by a small number of large, often foreign owned
multinational companies. Although most firms
are small, with 87% of firms employing less than
20 employees in 2009, large firms generate most
of the value added and dominate RD expenditure.
For example, firms with 250 or more employees
created 88% of the total gross value in 200911 and
the largest 10 RD performers alone accounted
for over a third of all manufacturing RD.
However, in recent years, the relative share of
manufacturing in the UK economy has declined
more rapidly than in other developed economies
(Figure 112) while the service sector has grown
at a faster rate. This growth of the service sector
in the UK is consistent with growth in other
developed economies13 including France and the
US. This ‘deindustrialisation’ has also applied to UK
manufacturing employment, with numbers reducing
at a faster rate than in other developed economies,
from close to nine million people in 1966 to below
three million in 201114.


VARIABLE PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITORS
UK manufacturing performance has been weak
relative to international competitors in some
key areas:
xpenditure on manufacturing RD has been
E
low, especially with regard to new products15.

The level of investment in capital equipment has
been relatively low for many decades16.
he UK’s share of global manufacturing exports
T
has fallen from 7.2% in 1980 to 2.9% in 201217.
But there are also many outstanding individual
firms, and some important areas of relatively strong
performance for manufacturing as a whole:
hen total factor productivity is compared
W
between the UK, the Netherlands, Spain,
France, Italy and Germany, from 1980 and 2009,
manufacturing performs best in the UK18.

Figure 1: Manufacturing share of GDP 1990-2010
MVA SHARE OF TOTAL GDP (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1990 1992 1994

China
Republic of Korea
Singapore
Finland

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Japan
Italy
Germany
USA

Brazil
France
United Kingdom

Graph based on data fron United Nations Industrial
Development Organisation (UNIDO) (2013)

he fall in the UK’s share of goods exports has
T
been accompanied by an increase in export
intensity (manufacturing exports as a proportion
of manufacturing output), which rose from about
30% in 1991 to around 47% in 2011; which is
similar to France and higher than the US19.

The Foresight report has done an excellent job of identifying what
manufacturing brings to our economy and what it can contribute in the future.
There are some clear messages for government on how it can ensure that
UK manufacturing is well placed to take advantage of these opportunities,
particularly in supporting the development of new technologies. It is also
important that manufacturers use this report to look at how well prepared
they are for the challenges facing them in the coming decades.
Terry Scuoler
Chief Executive, EEF

15

16


Figure 2: Simpliﬁed model of the manufacturing value chain

Research
development

Product
service
development

Supplier
management

Production

Route to
market

After sales
service

Consumption

Disposal

Reuse, remanufacturing, recycling recovery
Note: Within this value chain some elements are repeated many times, for example as components come together to build a complex product.
There are also feedback loops which may vary for different sub-sectors.

MANUFACTURING IS CHANGING
PROFOUNDLY, CREATING MAJOR NEW
SOURCES OF REVENUE AND VALUE
BEYOND THE PRODUCTION AND SALE
OF PRODUCTS
Manufacturing has traditionally been understood
as the production process in which raw materials
are transformed into physical products20 through
processes involving people and other resources.
It is now clear that physical production is at the
centre of a wider manufacturing value chain21.
(Figure 2 and Box 1).

Manufacturers are increasingly using this wider
value chain to generate new and additional revenue,
with production playing a central role in allowing
other value creating activities to occur. For example,
39% of UK manufacturers with more than 100
employees derived value from services related
to their products in 2011, compared with 24% in
2007 (Figure 3)25. This typically involves supporting
or complementing products, and offering outcome
or availability based contracts for products. Not
all manufacturing firms report service revenue
separately, and there is no requirement for them
to do so. However, in 2009 Rolls Royce reported
49% of its revenue from services, and Arcelor
Mittal reported 29%.

BOX 1: RECENT DEFINITIONS OF MANUFACTURING
‘The new era of manufacturing will be marked by highly agile, networked enterprises that use information and
analytics as skilfully as they employ talent and machinery to deliver products and services to diverse global
markets’ (McKinsey Company, 2012)22.
‘The application of leading-edge technical knowledge and expertise for the creation of products, production
processes and associated services, which have strong potential to bring sustainable growth and high economic
value to the UK. Activities may stretch from RD at one end to recycling at the other’ (Technology Strategy
Board, 2012)23.
‘The world is in the midst of a paradigm shift in the 21st century – one that integrates diverse sets of ideas,
products and services globally through the lens of highly complex, integrated and self-morphing resource
webs… Highly talented skilled people are necessary to effectively and consistently apply cutting edge science
and technology, systems thinking, smart services and processes, and supply chain excellence’ (Deloitte, 2013)24.


Figure 3: Manufacturers offering services, 2007 2011 (100 or more employees)
% PERCENT
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%
2007
2011

10%

Source: Neely, A. et al. (2011)
China

Japan

Austria

France

Indonesia

Thailand

Denmark

Australia

South Africa

UK

Greece

Spain

Cayman Islands

Taiwan

Switzerland

Sweden

Bermuda

Germany

Hong Kong

Norway

Belgium

Netherlands

Malaysia

Singapore

USA

Finland

0%

New sources of revenue and of value creation
will transform manufacturing business models
over time. They will draw on new sources of
knowledge and closer, long term relationships
with customers. Future sources of revenue for
manufacturers will include26:
ncreasingly extensive packaging of services
I
with products;
ew sources of information on how products
N
are used, drawing on embedded sensors and
open data;
ecoming a ‘factoryless goods producer’,
B
capturing value by selling technological
knowledge and leaving production to others;
ecoming a ‘remanufacturer’ with end of life
B
products remanufactured and returned to
original specifications or better;
argeting ‘collaborative consumption’, where
T
no one customer owns a product outright;

reating value from new forms of (competitive)
C
strategic alliance within and across sectors; and
xploiting new technologies more rapidly
E
through greater operational capability coupled
to entrepreneurial insight.

17

18

2. Four key future characteristics of manufacturing and implications for Government

2. FOUR KEY FUTURE
CHARACTERISTICS
OF MANUFACTURING
AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR GOVERNMENT

Manufacturing is entering a dynamic new phase
which will provide substantial opportunities for
the UK. Looking ahead to 2050, this Foresight Project
has identified four key future characteristics of
manufacturing. They have significant implications
for both Government and industry.


19

20


2.1. FASTER,
MORE
RESPONSIVE
AND CLOSER
TO CUSTOMERS
WHAT ARE THE LIKELY CHANGES?
Technology will play a central role in driving
change. Some of the value being created in
2050 will derive from wholly unanticipated
breakthroughs but many of the technologies
that will transform manufacturing, such as additive
manufacturing , are already established or clearly
emerging. Table 1 summarises some of the most
important pervasive and secondary technologies
including ICT, sensors, advanced materials and
robotics. When integrated into future products
and networks, these will collectively facilitate
fundamental shifts in how products are designed,
made, offered and ultimately used by consumers.
Mass personalisation of low-cost products,
on demand:The historic split between cheap massproduced products creating value from economies
of scale and more expensive customised products
will be reduced across a wide range of product types.
Technologies such as additive manufacturing, new
materials, computer-controlled tools, biotechnology,
and green chemistry will enable wholly new forms
of personalisation. Direct customer input to design
will increasingly enable companies to produce
customised products with the shorter cycle-times
and lower costs associated with standardisation and
mass production.The producer and the customer
will share in the new value created. For example,
research at the University of Loughborough shows
that customers might be prepared to pay an
additional 10% for some degree of personalisation27.
Customisation is a significant opportunity for UK
manufacturers targeting both the domestic market
and other developed economies.
Distributed production: We will see a transformation
in the nature of production itself, driven by trends
such as new forms of modelling and additive

manufacturing through to nanotechnologies and
advanced robotics. The factories of the future will
be more varied, and more distributed than those
of today (Figure 4). The production landscape will
include capital intensive super factories producing
complex products; reconfigurable units integrated
with the fluid requirements of their supply chain
partners; and local, mobile and domestic production
sites for some products. Urban sites will become
common as factories reduce their environmental
impacts28. The factory of the future may be at the
bedside, in the home, in the field, in the office and
on the battlefield.
Digitised manufacturing value chains: Pervasive
computing, advanced software and sensor
technologies have much further to go in
transforming value chains. They will improve
customer relationship management, process control,
product verification, logistics, product traceability
and safety systems. They will enable greater design
freedom through the uses of simulation, and they
will create new ways to bring customers into design
and suppliers into complex production processes.

Looking to the future, we
recognise that transformational change is
required and emerging technologies present
an opportunity to create a paradigm shift,
allowing us to manufacture medicines faster,
greener and at a lower cost. Manufacturing
has become increasingly critical in the
pharmaceutical sector and will require
more agility to respond to patient needs,
more flexibility to bring production closer to
customers, as well as increases in efficiency
and sustainability. This will underpin
high quality standards and ensure new
medicines are affordable for patients around
the world. The prize is significant and it is
imperative that industry and Government
work together to seize this opportunity
and secure a leading position for the UK.
Roger Connor
President of Global Manufacturing
and Supply, GlaxoSmithKline plc


Table 1: Important pervasive and secondary technologies for future manufacturing activities

PERVASIVE
TECHNOLOGY

LIKELY FUTURE IMPACTS

Information and
communications
technology (ICT)

Modelling and simulation integrated into all design processes, together with virtual reality tools will allow
complex products and processes to be assessed and optimised, with analysis of new data streams.

Sensors

The integration of sensors into networks of technology, such as products connected to the internet, will revolutionise
manufacturing. New data streams from products will become available to support new services, enable self-checking
inventories and products which self diagnose faults before failure, and reduced energy usage.

Advanced
functional materials

New materials, in which the UK has strong capabilities, will penetrate the mass market and will include reactive
nanoparticles, lightweight composites, self-healing materials, carbon nanotubes, biomaterials and ‘intelligent’
materials providing user feedback.

Biotechnology

The range of biotechnology products is likely to increase, with greater use of fields of biology by industry.
There is potential for new disease treatment strategies, bedside manufacturing of personalised drugs,
personalised organ fabrication, wide availability of engineered leather and meat, and sustainable production
of fuel and chemicals.

Sustainable/green
technologies

These will be used to reduce the resources used in production including energy and water, produce clean
energy technologies, and deliver improved environmental performance of products. Minimising the use of
hazardous substances.

SECONDARY TECHNOLOGY
Big data and
knowledge based
automation

These will be important in the on-going automation of many tasks that formerly required people. In addition,
the volume and detail of information captured by businesses and the rise of multimedia, social medial and the
internet of things will fuel future increases in data, allowing firms to understand customer preferences and
personalise products.

Internet of things

There is potential for major impacts in terms of business optimisation, resource management, energy
minimisation, and remote healthcare. In factory and process environments, virtually everything is expected
to be connected via central networks. Increasingly, new products will have embedded sensors and become
autonomous.

Advanced and
autonomous
robotics

Advances are likely to make many routine manufacturing operations obsolete, including healthcare and
surgery, food preparation and cleaning activities. Autonomous and near-autonomous vehicles will boost
the development of computer vision, sensors including radar and GPS, and remote control algorithms.
3D measurement and vision will be able to adapt to conditions, and track human gestures.

Additive
manufacturing
(also known as 3D
printing)

This is expected to have a profound impact on the way manufacturers make almost any product. It will become
an essential ‘tool’ allowing designs to be optimised to reduce waste; products to be made as light as possible;
inventories of spare parts to be reduced; greater flexibility in the location of manufacturing; products to be
personalised to consumers; consumers to make some of their own products; and products to be made with
new graded composition and bespoke properties.

Cloud computing

Computerised manufacturing execution systems (MES) will work increasingly in real time to enable the control
of multiple elements of the production process. Opportunities will be created for enhanced productivity, supply
chain management, resource and material planning and customer relationship management.

Mobile internet

Smart phones and similar devices are positioned to become ubiquitous, general purpose tools for managing
supply chains, assets, maintenance and production. They will allow functions such as directed advertising, remote
healthcare and personalisation of products. Linked technologies include battery technology, low energy displays,
user interfaces, nano-miniaturisation of electronics, and plastic electronics.

21

22


Figure 4: Likely features of factories of the future

UK factories
of the future

Typical current features

Likely future features

Process and
practices

Limited flexibility of production
lines, with some potential for
multi-product manufacturing

Highly capable, ﬂexible,
embedded knowledge, close
customer relationships, cross
sector RD

Locations

Centralised in legacy locations,
some distance from customers
and suppliers

Diversity, cent ral hubs,
urban sites, distributed and
mobile, home integrated
design-make environments

Supply
chains

Typically a mixture of global
and local supply chains, not
well integrated with partners
with limited risk / revenue
sharing

Localised integrated
‘partnering’, effective use
of global capabilities and
adaptable logistics systems

Goals and
metrics

Mostly focussed on cost, quality
and delivery with less emphasis
on future performance and
sustainability

Speed, agility, degree of crossregion / sector collaboration,
total resource efﬁciency, global
competitiveness

Facilities

Often close to urban areas
with legacy infrastructure
(especially ICT) poor
sustainability performance

Innovative and customised
buildings, spacious, sustainable
operations, open to customers,
partners and the community

Technology

Typically a focus on low
risk automation and product
technologies. Reliant on
technology from equipment
suppliers

Integrated value chain
approach, digitised, Big Data
enabled, additive processes and
many new advanced materials

People

Typically technical and
professional workers, mostly
men, with processes reliant
on manual intervention

Increasingly knowledge
based work, continuous
improvement principles,
multi-skilled / gender teams

Culture

Typically a ‘command and
control’ culture focussed on
in-house knowledge, limited
supply chain integration

Open, creative, networked and
interactive. Integrated working
principles with suppliers and
research partners


WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
GOVERNMENT?
Improving the speed and co-ordination of the
technology pipeline for UK manufacturing: Given the
pace of change in technological developments and
international competition, the UK needs to strengthen
the extended system that identifies and supports new
technologies and their applications.The UK’s High Value
Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult Centre, established
in 2011, has a key role in the near term, and is an
example of a step that the Government has taken to
develop a more systemic approach across research,
innovation and industrial policy.
Immediate priorities should be to scale up funding for
the HVM Catapult Centre, to promote much stronger
involvement of small and medium enterprises in the
member centres, and to enhance the role it plays in
connecting academic expertise to industry. Longer
term, there is potential for the Centre to support
international collaboration between manufacturers,
for example by establishing a presence in key
emerging economies.

Greater leveraging of the UK’s intellectual assets:
The UK’s education system has considerable strengths
relative to international competitors29. However it
files fewer patents than countries such as US, Japan
and Germany30.This suggests the UK is not leveraging
its intellectual assets as much as it will need to in
the future. For example, there needs to be a shift in
the in balance of funding towards applied research
and in its commercialisation.There also needs to be
increased effort to identify key areas (such as sensors
and additive manufacturing), to develop technology
roadmaps, and to guide policy.
Protecting intellectual property, reducing counterfeiting
and avoiding cyber attacks: Digitisation increases the
risks of objects being copied illegally.Technologies such
as additive manufacturing may make it even harder
to identify breaches29. However, the same trends
support innovation and new forms of value creation.
Today’s regulatory and policy frameworks need to be
reappraised to ensure they achieve the best balance
between openness and the rights and obligations
of intellectual property ownership in this changing
environment.They also need to consider what further
action needs to be taken to address the threat of
cyber-attack, which increasingly threatens informationrich products and services.

23

24


2.2. EXPOSED
TO NEW
MARKET
OPPORTUNITIES
WHAT ARE THE LIKELY FUTURE TRENDS?
Patterns of global trade and investment will
determine the relative importance of the countries
to which the UK exports and from which it imports;
the types of firms and sectors which will be involved
in its trade; the future structure and performance
of manufacturing within the overall Balance of
Payments; the place of the UK in the global pattern
of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows; and the
conduct of RD and investment in innovation.
Emergence of BRIC economies and the ‘Next-11’:
BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are
likely to become larger than the US by 2015 and
the G7 by 2032. In addition, the ‘N-11’ economiesii
are likely to become larger than the US and almost
twice the size of the Euro area by 205031. By value,
UK is low down the global list of exporters to China
(24th) and India (21st). The UK is the world’s 10th
largest goods exporter, with a 2.9% share of global
manufacturing exports in 2012. However its share
of imports to countries forecast to be in the top
30 economies by 2050 is generally dissapointing
and below this level32. The UK’s relatively poor
current placement in these markets will make it
harder for it to benefit from their future growth.
Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Philippines, Turkey and Vietnam.

ii

Continued importance of US and Europe for UK
manufacturing exports: The UK exported to 226
different countries or territories in 2010. The US
was the most important destination, accounting for
13% by value. In 2012, EU markets accounted for about
54% of total export value, with BRIC exports at 8%.
High-tech likely to remain an area of UK advantage:
At 4.7%, the UK’s share of global high technology
manufacturing exports is relatively strong. Current
high-tech sectoral strengths include pharmaceuticals,
aerospace, chemicals, and the automotive sector.

Changing levels of personal wealth, including larger
and older populations in major markets: The global
population with annual per capita expenditure
between US$3,650 and US$36,500 (2005 prices),
is estimated to more than double in size from
2 billion in 2012 to 5 billion in 203033. Asia’s share
of the group will rise from 30% to 64%. There will
be 3 billion more people in the world by 205034
with 97% of population growth taking place in
developing regions35. Populations in some major
markets are growing significantly older, with the
Asia-Pacific region having the oldest (Japan) and
largest (China)36.
Risks to Foreign Direct Investment into Europe may
affect the UK: The UK has been a major recipient
of inward FDI for manufacturing and remains in a
good position to attract an above-average share of
FDI coming into Europe. However, FDI flows into
Europe, as a proportion of total available FDI, are
likely to reduce due to competition from BRIC and
other emerging economies37.
Continued global fragmentation of the value chain:
Fragmentation includes the outsourcing of functions
and offshoring. It is driven by factors such as the
costs and quality of labour and transport, security
of provision, the opportunities created by trade
liberalisation; the availability of data and information;
and the integration of suppliers into product
development processes. Many manufacturing value
chains are likely to continue to fragment, with the
operation of supply chains playing a major role in
determining future changes38.

The international, 'industrial
systems' view of manufacturing
set out in this report points the way
to creating and capturing value in
a dynamic global economy. Meeting
the implied challenges will require
radical new approaches which
cross traditional disciplinary and
institutional boundaries.
Professor Sir Mike Gregory
Head of the Institute for Manufacturing
University of Cambridge


Some onshoring of production back to the UK:
Onshoring (or ‘reshoring’) is a recent trend typically
involving the repatriation of production from low
cost locations; investment in onshore production
to enhance capability; and sourcing of components
from onshore, rather than from overseas. This is
typically in response to changing labour costs, higher
transport costs, a need to be closer to the market,
product quality concerns, and advantages of colocating RD and production39. There is little robust
evidence about the scale of this trend so far (see
Box 2 for illustrations)40. However, some underlying
trends suggest it will become increasingly possible
for the UK to compete with lower cost locations,
on quality, delivery speed and customisation.
Increasing foreign ownership: If current trends
continue, the foreign-owned manufacturing sector
within the UK will account for a larger share of
output (by 2020), GVA and employment (by 2015)
than the UK-owned sector41. The presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) will continue to
help improve the performance of the UK’s largest
firms, but the detail of the effects depends on the
investment and production strategies of MNCs.

The quickest-acting and
highest-octane fuel for growth
in any economy, is a blisteringly strong
export performance. The challenge
for UK manufacturing is to recognise
what things we’re especially good at,
embrace them and drive them forward,
by investing time, money and skills
in them. We should acknowledge our
strengths, and play to them.
Sir Richard Olver
Chairman, BAE Systems plc

BOX 2: EXAMPLES OF UK ONSHORING
John Lewis plc: During July 201342, the retailer
emphasised its commitment to increasing sales of
products manufactured in the UK by announcing a
two-year 15 per cent growth target for all sales of
goods in its shops that are made in the UK. In addition,
it has increased its number of UK suppliers from 132
in 2012 to 207 in 2013.
Hornby plc: In November 201243 the UK model
maker decided to return the production of 60% of its
model paint brand, Humbrol, from China to the UK.
This decision was taken to improve supply, and ensure
high quality standards continue to be met, but from an
easier location nearer to the Margate Head Office.
Laxtons Ltd:This spinning company, established in 1907,
is now a design-driven yarn manufacturer. Like many
British textile companies, production was offshored,
but it has now returned to Yorkshire, reducing the
firm’s carbon footprint and lead times and increasing
its control over quality and raw materials.
Bathrooms.com: In July 201344, the online bathroom
specialist confirmed that it was handing 50% of the
contracts currently held by Chinese manufacturers
to UK businesses in the Midlands, to decrease the
time taken from design through to production from
four to six months to six weeks.
Marks Spencer plc: In October 201345, the
retailer launched its Best of British collection selling
womenswear and menswear collections which
emphasise British craftsmanship and quality, which
feature a combination of British heritage, sourcing and
production.This was part of a three-year deal with
the British Fashion Council to support domestic talent
and increase its sourcing from the UK.

25


GOVERNMENT?
Enabling UK manufacturers to control global value
chains: As manufacturing value chains continue to
fragment globally, and new business models such as
manufacturing services continue to develop, it will
become increasingly important for manufacturers
to create and operate value chains to maximise
revenues46. Government action in support of
this needs to be agile and outward looking, and
informed by a common view of developments
which draws upon intelligence from BIS, Research
Councils and the Technology Strategy Board.
A recent example of such action is a funding
competition launched by the Technology Strategy
Board this year; this supports feasibility studies
into new business models which in turn promote
innovations in high value manufacturing47.

Promoting co-location of RD with production to
maintain and build an ‘industrial commons’iii Products
dependent on process-driven innovation, such as
some drugs, nano-materials and some electronics
applications benefit from the co-location of different
parts of their production systems (Figure 5)48.
Government has a major role to play, nationally
and locally, in encouraging greater agglomeration
and clustering of particular activities, including
encouraging co-location of production alongside
research and development.
Industrial commons: The embedded knowledge and technology
framework that enhances the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity
of the proprietary capital and labour that use it.

iii

Raising the UK’s export performance, particularly to
emerging economies: Products win export markets
when they deliver value, rarity, and possess hardto-imitate attributes49. Most exporting is done by
firms with relatively high levels of productivity, so
measures to raise this, for example by improving

Figure 5: Product design/production and relationship to process maturity

high

PROCESS-EMBEDDED INNOVATION

Process maturity: the degree to which
the process has evolved

26

low

PURE PRODUCT INNOVATION

Process technologies, though mature, are still
highly integral to product innovation. Subtle
changes in process can alter the product’s
characteristics in unpredictable ways. Design
cannot be separated from manufacturing.
Examples: craft products, high-end wine,
high-end apparel, heat-treated metal
fabrication, advanced materials fabrication,
speciality chemicals.

The processes are mature, and the
value of integrating product design
with manufacturing is low. Outsourcing
manufacturing makes sense.
Examples: desktop computers, consumer
electronics, active pharmaceutical ingredients,
commodity semiconductors.

PROCESS-DRIVEN INNOVATION

PURE PROCESS INNOVATION

Major process innovations are evolving
rapidly and can have a huge impact on
the product. The value of integrating RD
and manufacturing is extremely
high. The risks of separating design and
manufacturing are enormous.
Examples: biotech drugs, nanomaterials,
OLED and electrophoretic displays,
superminiaturized assembly.

Process technology is evolving rapidly but
is not intimately connected to product
innovation. Locating design near
manufacturing isn’t critical.
Examples: advanced semiconductors,
high-density flexible circuits.

low

Source: Pisano Shih (2012)

Modularity: the degree to which information about product design
can be separated from the manufacturing process

high


the quality of leadership and management, will be
key. The role of UK Trade and Investment (UKTI)
will also continue to be important and should be
strengthened in markets offering the best potential
for export growth. This includes the provision of
advice and market-based intelligence to companies
seeking to increase their exports or enter new
markets, and support to businesses once they
are operating in a market, for example in areas of
language and culture. Beyond these measures, there
is a need to understand much better what prevents
the UK from having more exporting ‘superstars’ –
firms which export ten or more products to ten or
more destinations.
Identifying ‘phoenix’ industries emerging from
previous manufacturing activities: Established
industrial regions typically possess important legacy
assets such as specialised engineering skills, preexisting personal networks, technical skills, and
market knowledge50. National and local policymakers will need to develop new mechanisms
to identify and exploit these legacies to support
phoenix industries, such as small and mediumsized firms specialising in the production of high
value sophisticated components for equipment
manufacturers. Success will depend on strong
local alliances, such as those behind specialised

training and research programmes run by Sheffield
University51 and other universities.
Keeping the UK attractive to manufacturing FDI:
Three attributes that make the UK attractive to
overseas investors include quality of life, culture
and language; the stable political environment;
and technology and infrastructure52. Priorities for
attracting future FDI for manufacturing include the
provision of high quality e-infrastructure and physical
infrastructure (roads53, in particular).
Ensuring a supply of patient capital: UK capital
markets are characterised by an arms-length
relationship between the providers and users of
finance. An emphasis on short term returns by
investors leads to management focus on shortterm movements in stock market prices, and the
threat of takeover, with long term investment in
new capital equipment, skills and training and RD
spend inhibited. These effects are damaging for
manufacturing, which requires relatively high long
term investment in terms of new capital equipment,
RD and skills54. The institutional architecture which
encourages impatience in corporate governance and
the capital market must be addressed to support
future UK manufacturing competitiveness.

27

28


2.3 MORE
SUSTAINABLE
Participants at the project’s international workshops
repeatedly emphasised the profound changes that
environmental sustainabilityiv will have on production
processes over the next four decades. Figure 6
outlines these in three broad phases.
The terms ‘sustainable manufacturing’ and the ‘drive towards
sustainability’ are frequently used in the Foresight work. The definition
of sustainability adopted here is that described in the widely cited
Brundtland Report: ‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs’.

iv

Volatility of supply: A growing global population
and increased urbanisation (70% of the global
population will live in urban areas in 2050)55 will
increase demand for materials, water, energy

and land. As a result, resources will be subject to
greater competition, with potential disruptions in
their supply. In most cases, prices will rise and they
may also become more volatile. Those companies
and nations that learn how to manufacture their
products with less of these inputs will be more
resilient to these effects.
Climate change and the increased vulnerability
of global supply chains: Climate change will have
a range of impacts including rising sea levels and
extreme weather events56. UK manufacturers will be
affected by challenges such as the disruption of their
international supply chains.
Greater use of regulation, potential ‘pricing of
the environment’: Regulation is likely to focus
increasingly on promoting resource productivity.
For example, recent EU legislation aims to
divert electrical equipment waste away from
landfill. Over the period to 2050, national and
international responses are likely to include tougher
environmental standards for products and new ways
to price natural resources and ecosystem services.

Figure 6: Three phases in the shift to sustainable manufacturing

2013-2025:
Efficiency
resilience

 Minimised material
inputs
 Waste management
 Increased energy
efficiency
 Reduced water usage
 Improved efficiency in
land usage
 UK leadership in areas
including low-carbon
technology

2025-2050:
Experimentation
with new systems

 New forms of value
associated with
products including
sustainability
 Products reused,
remanufactured,
recycled and redesigned
with recovery in mind
 More durable products
designed for shared
ownership
 Spare capacity built into
supply chains to ensure
resilience

2050 beyond:
A resource
constrained world

 Products use smaller
amounts of materials
and energy
 Material is not landfilled but kept in a
‘productive loop’
 Cleaner and quieter
factories close to
consumers, suppliers
and academic institutions
 Supply chains with spare
capacity at all stages


Consumer pull for eco-products: Consumer
demand for sustainable products which use less
energy and fewer materials is growing57, although
it is not clear how far and fast demand will change.
Unilever’s pledge to double turnover without
increasing greenhouse gas emissions58 and Marks
Spencer’s Plan A to go ‘beyond compliance’ on the
environment59 are examples of corporate responses.
Making robust products for ‘collaborative
consumption’60: ICT-based systems are facilitating
new business models based on shared use of assets.
This shifts the business model from ownership to
access, incentivises manufacturers to provide robust
products, and allows the creation of new service
based revenue streams.
Emergence of a ‘circular economy’ in which end of life
products are reused, remanufactured and recycled:
Resource scarcity and higher costs for energy and
waste disposal will shift manufacturing value creation
to new models (Figure 7 and Box 3)61:
euse: Redeploying a product without the need
R
for refurbishment;
emanufacturing: Returning a product to its
R
original performance specification;
ascaded use: Using a product for a lower value
C
purpose, for example turning used clothes into
pillow stuffing or redeploying computers within a
business for less demanding applications;
ecycling: Extracting the raw materials and using
R
them for new products;
ecovery: Re-using materials for a low value
R
purpose such as road base or combustion to
produce heat62.

BOX 3: EXAMPLES OF FIRMS EMBRACING
THE ‘CIRCULAR ECONOMY’
Caterpillar Inc.: Caterpillar is a US manufacturer
of construction and mining equipment, diesel and
natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines and
diesel-electric trains, with a strong UK presence.
The business runs ‘Cat Reman’, a remanufacturing
programme that returns products at the end of
their lives to same-as-new condition, and seeks new
ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and reclaim materials
which once would have gone into a landfill. During
2012, Cat Reman took back over 2.2 million end-oflife units for remanufacturing63.
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd (JCB): JCB is one of the
world's top three manufacturers of construction
equipment, based in the UK. Through the JCB
Service Exchange, the business helps plant users
to reduce owning and operating costs, with a
comprehensive range of remanufactured parts for
all its machines. Around 1650 high quality parts, all
remanufactured to Original Equipment Manufacturer
standards and protected by the same warranty
conditions as new parts, are offered. With typical
savings against new of 40-50%, the remanufactured
parts can restore machines to their optimum
condition at a more affordable price. Furthermore,
remanufactured parts are upgraded to incorporate
the latest technology64.

29


Supporting business models based on reuse
remanufacturing and services: Government
should work with industry and others, for
example in the UK such as the Royal Society
for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures
and Commerce (RSA) and the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation66 to accelerate the development
and roll out of the ‘circular economy’. Lessons
should also be drawn from overseas organisations
such as the 2009 China ‘Circular Economy
Promotion Law’.

GOVERNMENT?
Incentivising product and process efficiency: Greater
use should be made of well designed regulation,
in particular drawing upon ideas from abroad.
For example, effective energy reduction has been
demonstrated by innovative schemes such as ‘TopRunner’ in Japan65 where future product standards
are set so that all products manufactured at a
specific point in the future must be at least as good
as the best performance of today. The Government
should consider developing top-runner schemes in
the UK, for example relating to the energy usage of
factories, and also procurement and waste policies.

Quantifying domestic reserves of critical materials:
It is essential that the UK makes the most of
any domestic supplies of key materials, where
economically viable, such as sources of indium,
widely used in the production of LCD displays
and low-melting temperature alloys.

Targeting RD at improving resource efficiency
and material substitution: The UK has world
class capabilities in key areas of research in novel
material design and development. Continued
support for fundamental research should be
complemented by programmes to develop
rapid recycling and recovery technologies, with
non-destructive removal of high value parts and
materials from complex end-of-life products.

Figure 7: The Circular Economy
RESOURCE
FACILITY

RECYCLED
MATERIALS

RE SOU RC E

DE S IG N

FO R

RE-

US

MAT

AL

N

F

E
AK
YM

NU

RY

LIC

MA

CO
VE

PO

EI

RE

EN
T

DE S

IG N

FO

R

SE

RS

RE

FAC
TU

RE

TU
AC

FACTORY

E RI

MAN
AG E
M

RS

TE
MA

LS
RIA

DE S IG N FOR

S
ERT
EXP

MAN
U

R
VI
S

NF

I NVE STORS

DE S I G

OR
N
LO

NIE

V I TY
GE

M PA

UC

AT
IO

N

S

ED

S

NS

CO

PRODUCT

UM

ER

US

ER

A
AC

S

CONSUMER

Source: Royal Society for the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures
and Commerce (2013)

DE S I G N

DE S

IG N F

OR A C I

RC U L A R E C O N O M Y

DE

M

I N FLU E N C E RS

CE

B R AN D S C O

BRAND

IC

30


2.4.
INCREASINGLY
DEPENDENT
ON HIGHLY
SKILLED
WORKERS
Sustained future demand for manufacturing workers:
UK manufacturing employment has declined
significantly in the past (from around 9 million
people in 1966 compared with less than 3 million
in 2011). Any future declines will be much smaller,
with around 170,000 fewer people in the sector
projected by 2020 compared with 2010. However,
there will be around 800,000 jobs to fill in the years
up to 2020, as people retire or leave manufacturing.
An ageing population and the need to accommodate
more older workers: Over the period to 2050,
the UK will have an ageing population, with the
number of people aged 65 years and over (i.e. of
‘traditional’ retirement age) set to increase, while
the numbers of ‘traditional’ working age people are
set to decrease. By 2030, 17% of the UK population
will be aged between 60-74. There will be a number
of challenges in making manufacturing attractive
to older workers, particularly in sub-sectors with
the oldest age profiles including manufacturing of
machinery and fabricated metal products.
Science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM)
qualifications: By 2020 there are expected to be
an additional 80,000 managerial, professional and
associate professional and technical positions in
manufacturing. Overall, many jobs will require
apprentice, degree and technician level STEM
qualifications, especially in product design and
development. Future demand is currently likely to
exceed supply especially as, at present, only around
a quarter of engineering and technology graduates
work in manufacturing six months after graduation.

Demand for technical specialism combined with
commercial and problem solving abilities: The
precise mix of skills in demand for the factories of
the future will vary by sub-sector (see Table 2)67,
but new blends of skills will increase manufacturers’
ability to exploit new opportunities. These blends
of high quality skills will allow developed economies
such as the UK to increasingly compete in terms of
the quality of their workforce.
A need to improve the perception of manufacturing
amongst young people and women 68, 69 and to
raise the quality of UK managers: Young people
and women tend to have a negative perception
of manufacturing, with 67% of girls aged 7-11
years indicated that they would not like a job
in manufacturing compared with 44% of boys70.
In addition, the UK currently fares poorly on
the quality of its managers71: average scores for
management practices in surveys of manufacturing
in different countries show that Great Britain scores
below the US, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Canada,
but is on a par with Australia, Italy and France.
Strong leadership teams and distributed leaders in
key positions throughout manufacturing businesses
will be essential in the future.
The potential for human enhancement: By 2050
patterns of employment will be influenced
by new forms of human enhancement and
augmented capabilities72. These may support mental
performance and physical mobility, and help counter
the effects of ageing.

31

32


GOVERNMENT?
Increasing and diversifying the supply of
manufacturing workers to avoid future shortfalls:
There is a need to consistently reach out to young
people in the education system to encourage
them to study STEM subjects to keep their
future options open; focussing on accessing and
attracting international talent for example through
‘science visas’; and building and maintaining existing
workforce capability for example by encouraging
continual vocational education and training.
Equipping future workers with high quality skills
that manufacturers will need: potential workers
will need to be as high quality and ‘business ready’
as possible, to meet the need for new skills sets
driven by changing business models, technology
and other factors. Higher level skills, vocational
training, apprenticeships and STEM qualifications
will be critical as the manufacturing workforce
shifts to include a greater proportion of managerial,
professional and technical roles. Government will
need to increase the scale and ambition of its
programme of current initiatives to meet these
future requirements.
Ensuring that manufacturers utilise future workers
effectively: this will involve raising employer demand
for skills to stimulate a supply which meets future
needs as closely as possible; and employers
designing jobs that exploit new skills and capabilities
for competitive advantage.

A common theme of all the future
trends is the need for a highly
talented, skilled and flexible workforce.
We must do more to achieve a higher
percentage of young people going into
Science and Engineering and counter the
current poor perception of Manufacturing
industries. Manufacturing local to your
consumers to deliver exceptional value is a
trend we already see in the Food and Drink
sector. Understanding the complete value
chain (e.g. from farm to fork) will enable
businesses to deliver increased value to
customers and consumers.
Richard Martin
Chief Engineer, Nestle UK Ireland


Table 2: Long term skill demands in selected manufacturing sub-sectors and technologies

SUB-SECTOR

MANAGEMENT
SKILLS

PROFESSIONAL
SKILLS

TECHNICAL SKILLS

Aerospace

Capacity to negotiate
complex global markets

Mix of technical and
business skills required to
manage complex projects
and international supply
chains involved in design
and RD

Engineering (electrical
and mechanical)/
software (modelling and
simulation); knowledge
of advanced materials

Plastic and silicon
electronics

Ability to bring new products to market and manage
the transition from producing prototypes to higher
volume production

Testing, prototyping and
being able to implement
new designs. Skills related
to using plastic electronics

Biotechnology/
Pharmaceuticals

Management of new
product development

Need for scientists
capable of working across
boundaries of biology/
genetics/chemistry/
chemical engineering etc.

Technicians capable of
working with the new
production systems
required to produce
biotechnology products

New materials/
composites

Skills related to the
commercialisation of new
materials

Scientists and technologists
are required to develop new
composites applicable to
sectors such as automotive
and aerospace

Technicians will need
to acquire the skills
required to work with
new materials in their
manufacture

Nanotechnology

As a new embryonic technology there is a need for
managers and professionals (especially scientists) across the
manufacturing sector to identify how nanotechnologies can
be incorporated in to products and processes

Source: Evidence Paper 36: Wilson, R. Hogarth, T. (2013)

Higher level skilled
technicians will be
required in relation to
the handling and use of
nanotechnologies

33

34

3. Three systemic areas for future Government focus

3. THREE SYSTEMIC
AREAS FOR FUTURE
GOVERNMENT FOCUS

As manufacturing evolves, policy makers will need
new approaches which reflect the changing nature
of manufacturing to ensure that the UK is a place
where it thrives.


35

36


3.1. TAKING A MORE INTEGRATED
VIEW OF VALUE CREATION IN
THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Manufacturing is no longer just about ‘production’ –
making a product and then selling it. Manufacturers
are increasingly using a wider ‘value chain’ to
generate new and additional revenue from pre and
post production activities, with production playing a
critical role in allowing these other activities to occur.
New metrics are needed to capture the new ways
in which manufacturers are creating value, and to
assess the scale and location of important changes
within the sector. One way forward would be to
pilot the development of new metrics focussed
on the value chain (Box 4). These will be critical
in revealing key interconnections in the economy,
understanding the important role of production
in the manufacturing value chain, and helping to
identify where in the value chain future policy
intervention should focus to support manufacturers
as they create and capture new and additional
revenue streams. New metrics will also help
in developing an understanding of how policies
in other areas affect manufacturing.

This report is very timely
to prepare us for key opportunities
and challenges and to ensure we
use this changing manufacturing
landscape to capture a larger share
of global manufacturing than we
currently enjoy in the UK.
Juergen Maier
Managing Director, Siemens UK
and Ireland Industry Sector

BOX 4: NEW WAYS TO MEASURE
MANUFACTURING?
The performance of the manufacturing sector
is currently measured by classifying the output of
manufacturing firms by the main type of economic
activity in which they are engaged73 with the
Office for National Statistics using the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) system. This provides
a limited and incomplete picture since it captures
neither the wider manufacturing value chain nor
the incorporation within the firm of pre- and
post-production services which are increasingly
important in competitive business models for
manufacturing firms.
The Office for National Statistics collects limited
data relating to the type of goods and services
bought-in by firms, and to which broad sectors
goods and services are sold. This allows them
to construct Supply-and-Use and Input-Output
tables for the UK74 which show in aggregate
the flow of goods and services along the supply
chain. However, it is not possible to use these
data to measure which ‘core’ products also
involve ‘manufacturing-dependent’ pre- and
post-production goods and services.
Achieving this would require access to data
relating to individual firm data, with information
not only on what goods and services are bought-in
and to whom output is sold but also on which
plants and firms supply and purchase these goods
and services. Such detailed information is not
currently available. The ONS could lead a pilot
looking at innovative ways to use existing and
future potential data sources to develop finer grained
models of activity in support of policy making.


3.2. TARGETING SPECIFIC
STAGES OF THE MANUFACTURING
VALUE CHAIN
TAKING A MORE TARGETED APPROACH
TO SUPPORTING VALUE CREATION
Future industrial policies, informed by updated
metrics (see Section 3.1), will need to complement
strategic approaches to individual sectors by
allowing for a wider variety of types of targeted
interventions. This provides an opportunity for
developing the current Government approach to
industrial strategy. New measures, tailored to specific
requirements of manufacturing sub-sectors and the
technologies upon which successful future business
models will be built, should include, for example:
acilitating the emergence of challenger
F
businesses. These exploit new business models
and cross cutting approaches in technologies,
across sub-sectors, to drive ‘disruptive growth’ in
manufacturing. For example, support might focus
on businesses with strong design capabilities
specialising in additive manufacturing technology,
which collaborate with others to work across
manufacturing sub-sectors;
nhancing UK capabilities that cannot easily
E
be relocated abroad. This is particularly
important given the increasing ease with which
manufacturing activities and the different
elements of value chains can now be relocated
around the world. Further promotion of RD
clusters and their co-location with production
and the science base is one possible measure;
upporting the creation of new revenue streams
S
from manufacturing services. For example this
includes capitalising upon knowledge generated
by sensors embedded in products;
elping manufacturers to expand their
H
capabilities in remanufacturing and
resource efficiency; and

Meeting these requirements will involve a move
towards a coordinated systems based rationale for
the design and delivery of the UK’s industrial policy.
A SYSTEMS BASED APPROACH FOR
THE FUTURE
Future approaches to policy depend strongly
on recognising that manufacturing is part of an
extended system, which requires a response from
Government that cuts across policy departments.
This requires a ‘systems based’ approach that
takes full account of the linkage between science,
technology, innovation and industrial policies.
The result is the need for more integrated
coordination by government across policy
domains and Government departments, that
makes it easier to anticipate the potential
unintended consequences of policies, and to
identify where intervention would achieve the
greatest impact. Such an approach should help
to avoid the adoption of selective policies based
on narrow objectives that might inadvertently
hold back sustainable growth, and which are
more a feature of the current approach which
devolves policy-making to different government
departments with different roles and agendas.
The evidence collected by this Project suggests
that the greatest future need will be to remedy
‘systems failures’ that affect the rapid emergence
and uptake of new, cross-cutting technologies.
The future policy system must ensure that the
most valuable new technologies are not missed,
and needs to work with researchers, industry
experts and policy-makers so that government
initiatives collectively support them. In practice,
this will mean developing new ways to support
emerging technologies, including sophisticated
use of roadmapping to identify what is needed
to support technological change.

37

38


3.3. ENHANCING GOVERNMENT
CAPABILITY IN EVALUATING AND
COORDINATING POLICY OVER
THE LONG TERM
It is essential that institutional structures
within Government respond to changes in the
manufacturing sector so that they can deliver the
integrated systems approach which is advocated
to enable more effective policy delivery and
evaluation. This can be helped by promoting a
better sharing of understanding and intelligence
between the Department for Business Innovation
and Skills and the Technology Strategy Board – in
effect a shift in balance from sponsorship towards
knowledge transfer.
A new institutional architecture can also help.
A particular issue here is developing policy with
a longer term perspective independent of the
instabilities produced by the electoral cycle.
Examples of where this has been achieved in other
areas of policy include: an independent Bank of
England to implement monetary policy, the National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to
advise the NHS on the take-up of new treatments,
and the removal of ministerial discretion with
regard to cases investigated by the Competition
Commission. However, this has not generally been
the case with regard to industrial policy.
In considering future industrial policy towards
manufacturing and any related institutional
reforms, it is recommended that close attention
be paid to developments in other countries.
These are consistent with the general arguments
advanced in this Section. These examples are of the
US Advance Manufacturing National Programme
Office (AMNPO) (see Box 5), the Australian
Productivity Commission (APC), and the UK
Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI).
Building on insights from these examples there is
a clear need for future Government capability in
evaluating and coordinating policy over the long
term to be strengthened. The UK Government

should create an ‘Office for Manufacturing’,
which would:
egularly evaluate the effectiveness of industrial
R
policies relevant to manufacturing;
dentify relevant international best practice and
I
highlight this to Government;
nsure the collation and effective use of the
E
new best practice metrics for manufacturing
(see Section 3.1), also drawing in intelligence on
manufacturing value chains from the wider public
sector including Research Councils and the
Technology Strategy Board; and
dvise on where cross Government
A
coordination can be strengthened and simplified.
BOX 5: ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
NATIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICE,
UNITED STATES
Charged with implementing a whole-of-government
advanced manufacturing initiative, to facilitate
collaboration across federal agencies and to
convene private-public partnerships focused
on manufacturing innovation. It is hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
is staffed by representatives from federal agencies
with manufacturing-related missions and fellows
from manufacturing businesses and universities.
It was recommended by the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee
and endorsed by the President’s Council of
Advisers on Science and Technology75.


These are incredibly exciting times for manufacturing in the UK. I am delighted
to be playing my part in this Foresight project and ensuring that manufacturing
continues to be a key growth engine in the nation’s economy for many years to come.
Nigel Stein
Chief Executive, GKN plc

39

40

4. Conclusions

4. CONCLUSIONS

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE:
This Foresight Report looks out to 2050 and
describes the transformation which will occur
in the manufacturing sector and the environment
in which it operates.
These changes will present major opportunities
for the UK to develop competitive strengths in
new and existing areas, but they will also present
considerable challenges and threats, not least
through increases in global competition. It will be
essential for Government and industry to work
together to forge new policy frameworks and
develop measures so that manufacturing
is able to fulfil its full potential for contributing to
UK economic growth and prosperity, and in
rebalancing the economy.
Together, the proposed measures put forward in this
Report build on the current industrial and sectorspecific strategies, emphasising that Government will
need to significantly strengthen its future approach to
ensuring a strong and resilient manufacturing sector.:

GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO ACT IN THREE
SYSTEMIC AREAS TO:
xploit new forms of intelligence to gain sharper
e
insights into the sector and where value is being
created;
ake a more targeted approach to supporting
t
manufacturers, based on a system-wide
understanding of science, technology, innovation
and industrial policies; and
dapt and build innovative new institutional
a
capability for the future.
POLICIES AND MEASURES ALSO NEED
TO BE DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT
MANUFACTURING AS IT BECOMES:
faster, more responsive and closer to customers;
exposed to new market opportunities;
more sustainable; and
increasingly dependent on highly skilled workers.


FURTHER WORK:

NEXT STEPS

The work in preparing this report has revealed
issues affecting not only manufacturing but industry
in general in the UK. As immediate follow up, it
is recommended the Government commissions
detailed comparative studies into:

T
he Report and its supporting evidence propose
a wide range of specific insights and potential
actions for the public and private sectors to explore.
These will need to be considered in the round, and
the UK will need to adapt if it is to avoid being left
behind. Many examples of new support initiatives
and policy development have been identified in
competitor countries.

he role of institutional infrastructures and
t
systems in supporting industry;
he need for increasing the availability and quality
t
of long term (or patient) capital; and
he role of a national belief in value creation in
t
facilitating industrial success.

41


43

44

References

A. REFERENCES

Office for National Statistics (2013) GDP (O) low
level aggregates at constant and current prices. UK.
Available from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.
html?newquery=gdp+low+level+aggregates.
1

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2009) The Future of
UK Manufacturing: reports of its death are greatly
exaggerated. Available from: http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/
pdf/ukmanufacturing-300309.pdf
2

Office for National Statistics (2010) Measuring
investment in intangible assets in the UK: results from a
new survey. Economic Labour Market Review. 4 (7)
3

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2012c)
Community Innovation Survey, 2011. London. Available
from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://
www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-innovationanalysis/cis
4

O’Mahony, M. Timmer, M. (2009) Output, Input and
Productivity Measures at the Industry Level: the EU
KLEMS Database. The Economic Journal. 119. p.374 – 403.
Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/
j.1468-0297.2009.02280.x/abstract
5

Office for National Statistics (2012) Trade in Goods
classified by Industry (MQ10). Available from: http://www.
ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/uktrade/uk-trade/april-2012/tsd-tradein-goods-mq10-dataset--sb---april-2012.html. In: Office
for National Statistics (2012b) United Kingdom Balance
of Payments - The Pink Book, 2012. Available from: http://
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bop/united-kingdom-balance-ofpayments/2012/index.html
6

Harris, R. Moffat, J. (2013) Investigation into trends in
export participation among UK firms. London. Available
from: www.ukti.gov.uk/download/file/524940.html
7

Office for National Statistics (2012) Annual Survey of
Hours and Earnings – 2011 Revised results. UK. Available
from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-surveyof-hours-and-earnings/index.html
8

Office for National Statistics (2011) Supply and Use
Tables, 2005 edition. UK. Available from: http://www.
statistics.gov.uk/hub/economy/national-accounts/supplyand-use-tables
9

Driver, C. Temple, P. (2013) Capital investment:
what are the main long term trends in relation to UK
manufacturing businesses, and how do these compare
internationally? Foresight, Government Office for Science,
London.
10

Office of National Statistics (2013) Annual Business
Enquiry UK
11

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
(2013) The Industrial Competitiveness of Nations –
looking back, forging ahead. Vienna. Available from:
http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/
PSD/Competitive_Industrial_Performance_Report_
UNIDO_2012_2013.PDF
12

World Bank (2009) Growth of the Service Sector.
Available: http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/
beyondco/beg_09.pdf
13

Fothergill, S. Gore, T. (2013) The Implications for
employment of the shift to high value manufacturing.
Foresight, Government Office for Science, London.
14

Eurostat (2013) Turnover from innovation. Available
from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.
15

Driver, C. Temple, P. (2013) Capital investment:
what are the main long term trends in relation to UK
manufacturing businesses, and how do these compare
internationally? Foresight, Government Office for Science,
London.
16

World Trade Organisation (2013) Time Series: Exports
of manufactures, the world and the UK, current prices.
Available from: http://stat.wto.org/StatisticalProgram/
WSDBStatProgramHome.aspx?Language=E
17

Hay, G. Beaven, R. Robins, I. Stevens, J. Sobina, K.
(2013) What are the recent macro- economic trends
and what do they tell us about the future? Foresight,
Government Office for Science, London.
18

Kneller, R. (2013) What are the constraints on potential
UK exporters? Foresight, Government Office for Science,
London.
19

Porter, M. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and
sustaining superior performance. London: New York Free
Press.
20


21

Marsh, P. (2012) The New Industrial Revolution:
Consumers, Globalisation and the End of Mass
Production. Yale University Press.

30

McKinsey Company (2013) Manufacturing the future:
the next era of global growth and innovation. McKinsey
Global Institute. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/
insights/manufacturing/the_future_of_manufacturing

31

22

Technology Strategy Board (2012) A landscape for
the future of high value manufacturing in the UK: A
study conducted for the Technology Strategy Board.
Swindon. Available from: https://www.innovateuk.org/
documents/1524978/1814792/A+landscape+for+the+
future+of+high+value+manufacturing+in+the+UK/0f
fe7684-2f8c-4038-89b3-290c1085389d
23

Deloitte (2013) 2013 Global Manufacturing
Competitiveness Index Deloitte. U.S.A. Available from:
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20
Assets/Documents/Manufacturing/dttl_2013%20
Global%20Manufacturing%20Competitiveness%20
Index_11_15_12.pdf
24

Neely, A. Benedetinni, O. Visnjic, I. (2011) The
servitization of manufacturing: Further evidence.
18th European Operations Management Association
Conference. Cambridge, UK. Available from: http://
www.cambridgeservicealliance.org/uploads/
downloadfiles/2011-The%20servitization%20of%20
manufacturing.pdf
25

Spring, M. (2013) Which business models might ensure
UK value from emerging sectors? Foresight, Government
Office for Science, London.
26

Dickens, P. Kelly, M. Williams, J. (2013) What are
the significant trends shaping technology relevant to
manufacturing?. Foresight, Government Office for Science,
London.
27

Foresight Arup (2013) The Future of Manufacturing
International Perspectives Workshop. Foresight,
Government office for science, London.
28

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (2009) Viewing the United Kingdom School
System through the Prism of PISA. [Online] Available
from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46624007.pdf
29

Hall, B. (2013) What role will the protection of
intellectual property play in the future? Foresight,
Goldman Sachs (2012) A Guide to Growth Markets.
Office of the Chairman, Goldman Sachs Asset
Management, London. Available from: http://www.
goldmansachs.com/gsam/docs/funds_international/static_
literature/all_country/guide_to_growth_markets.pdf
BIS (2012) BIS Economics Paper No 17: UK trade
performance across markets and sector. London
32

Rohde, D. (2012) The Swelling Middle [Online]
Available from: http://www.reuters.com/middle-classinfographic
33

United Nations (2013) World Population Prospects,
the 2012 Revision. Available from: http://esa.un.org/wpp/
Documentation/publications.htm
34

Bloom, D. (2011) 7 billion and counting. Science. 333,
(6042). p.562-569, Available from: http://www.sciencemag.
org/content/333/6042/562
35

McNair, S. Flynn, M. Myerson, J. Gheerawo, R. ramster,
G. Hamlyn, H. (2013) What are the supply (workforce)
and demand (product) implications of an aging society?
36

Driffield, N.(2013) How attractive is the UK for future
foreign direct investment? Foresight, Government Office
for Science, London.
37

Baldwin, R. (2012) Global Supply Chains: Why They
Emerged, Why They Matter, Where They Are Going.
Fung Global Institute, Hong Kong. Available from: http://
www.fungglobalinstitute.org/images/docs/338.pdf
38

Bryson, J.R. Clark, J. Mulhall, R. (2013) The
Competitiveness and Evolving Geography of British
Manufacturing: Where is manufacturing tied locally and
how might this change? Foresight, Government Office for
Science, London.
39

Davidson, P. (2010) Some manufacturing head back
to the USA. USA Today. [Online] Available from: http://
usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-06manufacturing04_CV_N.htm. [ Accessed on: 6th August
2013].
40

45

46

References

41

Moffat, J. (2013) What are the recent micro-economic
trends and what do they tell us about the future?
Foresight, Government Office for Science, London

52

John Lewis plc (2013) John Lewis announces two-year
UK manufacturing target. Available from: http://www.
johnlewispartnership.co.uk/media/press/y2013/pressrelease-22-july-2013-john-lewis-announces-two-year-ukmanufacturing-target.html

53

42

Hornby plc (2012) Hornby returns Humbrol
manufacturing to the UK. Available from: http://
www.hornby.com/news/hornby-returns-humbrolmanufacturing-to-the-uk/
43

Cave, A. (2013) Bathrooms.com now taps the UK for
its production instead of China. The Telegraph. Available
from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-ofbusiness/10191390/Bathrooms.com-now-taps-the-UK-forits-production-instead-of-China.html
44

Marks and Spencer plc (2013) MS launches MS
Studio @ Fashion Street. Available from: http://corporate.
marksandspencer.com/media/press_releases/mandslaunches-mands-studio-@-fashion-street
45

Ridgway, K. Clegg, C. Williams, D. (2013) What are the
main trends shaping the factory of the future? Foresight,
46

Technology Strategy Board. (2013) New business
models in high value manufacturing. [Online] Available
from: https://www.innovateuk.org/competition-displaypage/-/asset_publisher/RqEt2AKmEBhi/content/newbusiness-models-in-high-value-manufacturing
47

Pisano, G. Shih, W. (2012). Producing prosperity. Why
America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance. Harvard
Business Review Press.
48

Peng, M. Meyer, K. (2013) Where are the future
markets for manufacturing output? Foresight, Government
Office for Science, London.
49

Christopherson, S. (2009), Manufacturing: Up from the
Ashes. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. 14. Available from:
http://www.democracyjournal.org/14/6702.php?page=all
50

Christopherson, S. (2009) The Future of Regional
Policy. London: The Smith Institute. Available from:
www.economia.unam.mx/cedrus/descargas/
TheFutureofRegionalPolicy.pdf
51

Ernst and Young (2012) 2012 UK Attractiveness Survey.
Available from: http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Issues/Businessenvironment/2012-UK-attractiveness-survey
EEF (2012) Transport for Growth. Available from:
http://www.eef.org.uk/publications/reports/Transport-forgrowth-Investing-in-our-infrastructure.htm
Hughes, A. (2013) Short-Terminism, Impatient Capital
and Finance for Manufacturing Innovation in the UK.
Foresight, Government Office for Science, London;
Kay, J. (2012) The Key Review of UK Equity Markets and
Long-term Revision-Making, HMSO, London; and
Deakin, S. (2013) The legal Framework Governing
Business Firms and its Implications for Manufacturing
Scale and Performance: The UK Experience in
International Perspective, Foresight, Government Officer
for Science, London.
54

Tennant, M. (2013) What are the business opportunities
presented by the drive for sustainability? Foresight,
55

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (2012) OECD Environmental Outlook to
2050. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/environment/
indicators-modelling-outlooks/
56

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) Green products:
Using sustainable attributes to drive growth and value.
Available from: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/corporatesustainability-climate-change/assets/green-products-paper.
pdf
57

Unilever (2012) Unilever Sustainable Living:
Greenhouse Gases. Available from: http://www.unilever.
com/images/PDF_generator_-_Greenhouse_gases_
tcm_13-365028.pdf
58

Marks and Spencer (2010) Our Plan A Commitments,
2010 – 2015. Available from: http://corporate.
marksandspencer.com/documents/publications/2010/
planacommitments2010
59

Collaborative Consumption. About. [Online] Available
from: http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/about/
[Accessed 1st August 2013]
60

Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures and Commerce (2013) The Great
Recovery. Available from: http://www.greatrecovery.org.
uk/the-great-recovery-report
61


Lavery/Pennell (2013). The Next Manufacturing
Revolution: Non-labour resource productivity and its
potential for UK Manufacturing.

Office for National Statistics (2013) [Online] Available
from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/
classifications/current-standard-classifications/standardindustrial-classification/index.html

62

73

Caterpillar (2013) Facts and figures. Available from:
http://www.caterpillar.com/sustainability/remanufacturing/
facts-and-figures

74

63

JC Bamford Excavators Ltd (2013) [Online] Available
from: http://www.jcb.co.uk/reman
64

Kimura, O. (2010) Japanese Top Runner approach
for energy efficiency standards. [Online] Available
from: http://www.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/
download/09035dp.pdf
65

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Interactive
System Diagram. Available from: http://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/circulareconomy/interactive-system-diagram
66

Wilson, R. Hogarth, T. (2013) What type of future
manufacturing workforce will the UK need? Foresight,
67

Livesey, F. (2012) Public perceptions of manufacturing
and efforts to rebalance the economy. IfM, University
of Cambridge. Available from: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.
ac.uk/uploads/News/2012/15_March_Job_Security/
PublicPerceptions_WhitePaper_FINAL_020312.pdf
68

Livesey, F. (2013) What is the public image of
manufacturing and how might this change? Foresight,
69

FreshMinds Research (2010) 2010 Engineering
and Engineers Brand Monitor. Available from:
http://www.engineeringuk.com/_resources/
documents/2010_Engineering_UK_Brand_Monitor_
FINAL_20100909120039.pdf
70

Homkes, R. (2013) What role will leadership play in
the future performance of manufacturing businesses?
71

The Academy of Medical Sciences, The British Academy,
The Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society
(2012) Human Enhancement and the future of work.
London
72

Office for National Statistics (2011) Supply and Use
Tables, 2005 edition. UK. Available from: http://www.
statistics.gov.uk/hub/economy/national-accounts/supplyand-use-tables.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (2012) Report to the President on Capturing
Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced
Manufacturing. Department of Energy, U.S.A. Available
from: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/pdfs/
pcast_july2012.pdf
75

47

48

List of evidence papers

B. LIST OF EVIDENCE PAPERS
The evidence papers detailed below were commissioned by Foresight, Government Office for Science,
London in 2013.
Evidence Paper 1:

Foresight Arup The Future of Manufacturing International Perspectives Workshop.

Evidence Paper 2:

Broadberry, S. Leunig, T. The Impact of Government Policies on UK Manufacturing since 1945.

Evidence Paper 3:

Bryson, J.R. Clark, J. and Mulhall, R. The Competitiveness and Evolving Geography of British Manufacturing:
Where is manufacturing tied locally and how might this change?

Evidence Paper 4:

Chang, H. Andreoni, A. Kuan, M. International Industrial Policy experiences and the Lessons for the UK.

Evidence Paper 5:

Deakin, S. The Legal Framework Governing Business Firms and its Implications for Manufacturing Scale and
Performance: The UK Experience in International Perspective.

Evidence Paper 6:

Dickens, P. Kelly, M. Williams, J. What are the significant trends shaping technology relevant to manufacturing.

Evidence Paper 7:

Driffield, N. How attractive is the UK for future foreign direct investment?

Evidence Paper 8:

Driver, C. Temple, P. Capital investment: what are the main long term trends in relation to UK manufacturing
businesses, and how do these compare internationally?

Evidence Paper 9:

Fothergill, S. Gore, T. The Implications for employment of the shift to high value manufacturing.

Evidence Paper 10:

Grant, P. Mason, T. What impact will the development and, potentially, the commercialisation of new and advanced
materials have on the future of manufacturing activities in the UK?

Evidence Paper 11:

Green, R. Zhang, X. What will be the future role of energy (including supply, distribution and security) in
manufacturing activities?

Evidence Paper 12:

Hall, B. What role will the protection of intellectual property play in the future?

Evidence Paper 13:

Hancke, B. Coulter, S. The German Manufacturing sector Unpacked: policies and future trajectories.

Evidence Paper 14:

Hay, G., Beaven, R., Robins, I., Stevens, J. Sobina, K. What are the recent macro-economic trends and what
do they tell us about the future?

Evidence Paper 15:

Homkes, R. What role will leadership play in the future performance of manufacturing businesses?

Evidence Paper 16:

Hughes, A. International Short-Termism, Impatient Capital and Finance for Manufacturing Innovation in the UK.

Evidence Paper 17:

Kneller, R. What are the constraints on potential UK exporters?

Evidence Paper 18:

Li, C. Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. Knowledge spillovers in manufacturing firms and future sources of knowledge
for innovation.

Evidence Paper 19:

Livesey, F. What is the public image of manufacturing and how might this change?


Evidence Paper 20:

Luger, M., Gil, N. Winch, G. What areas of infrastructure are important for the UK’s future competitiveness
in manufacturing activities?

Evidence Paper 21:

McLaughlin, P. What kind of system will encourage best practice principles in UK manufacturing activities?

Evidence Paper 22:

McNair, S., Flynn, M., Myerson, J., Gheerawo, R., Ramster, G. Hamlyn, H. What are the supply (workforce) and
demand (product) implications of an ageing society?

Evidence Paper 23:

Moffat, J. What are the recent micro-economic trends and what do they tell us about the future?

Evidence Paper 24:

Morton, B., Paget, G. Mena, C. What role does Government procurement play in manufacturing in the UK and
internationally, and how this might change in the future?

Evidence Paper 25:

Peng, M. Meyer, K. Where are the future markets for manufacturing output?

Evidence Paper 26:

O’Sullivan, E. Mitchell, N. What are the key international approaches to understanding the future of manufacturing?

Evidence Paper 27:

Parker, D., Arendoft, A., Chapman, A. Thompson, P. What impact will the availability of materials and resources
in the future have on the future manufacturing outlook in the UK?

Evidence Paper 28:

Pike, A., Dawley, S. Tomaney, J. How does manufacturing contribute to UK resilience?

Evidence Paper 29:

Ridgway, K., Clegg, C. Williams, D. What are the main trends shaping the factory of the future?

Evidence Paper 30:

Rowthorn, R. Coutts, K. Update of Prospects for the UK Balance of Payments.

Evidence Paper 31:

Rowthorn, R. Coutts, K. De-industrialisation and the Balance of Payments in Advanced Economies.

Evidence Paper 32:

Rowthorn, R. Coutts, K. Re-industrialisation: A Commentary.

Evidence Paper 33:

Spring, M. Which business models might ensure UK value from emerging sectors?

Evidence Paper 34:

Stehrer, R. What will be the future role of BRIC countries in providing global manufacturing output?

Evidence Paper 35:

Tennant, M. What are the business opportunities presented by the drive for sustainability?

Evidence Paper 36:

Wilson, R. Hogarth, T. What type of future manufacturing workforce will the UK need?

Evidence Paper 37:

Crafts, N. Hughes, A. Industrial policy for the medium-long term.

All of these evidence papers and the Project Report are available on www.bis.gov.uk/foresight

49

50

Industry High Level Stakeholder Group members

C. INDUSTRY HIGH LEVEL
STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEMBERS

The Rt. Hon. Vince Cable MP (Chair) Secretary of State, Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Dr Will Barton Head of Manufacturing, Technology Strategy Board
Prof. Sir John Beddington Former Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Government Office for Science
Jeremy Bentham Vice President, Global Business Environment, Royal Dutch Shell
Dr Tim Bradshaw Head of Industrial Policy, Enterprise and Innovation, CBI
Dr Claire Craig Deputy Head, Government Office for Science
Roger Connor President, Global Manufacturing and Supply, GlaxoSmithKline plc

Caleb Deeks Head of the Growth and Productivity Team, HM Treasury
Professor David Delpy Chief Executive, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Ron Dennis Executive Chairman, McLaren Group Ltd

Warren East Former Chief Executive Officer, ARM Holdings plc
Mark Elborne President and CEO, General Electric Company UK Ireland
Ronnie Fisher Director, Specialties General Manager, Pentagon Chemical Specialties
Mark Florman Chief Executive Officer, British Private Equity Venture Capital Association

Philip Greenish Chief Executive, The Royal Academy of Engineering
Dr Siavash Mahdavi Chief Executive, Within Technologies Ltd
Juergen Maier Managing Director, UK Industry Sector, Siemens plc
John Martin Senior Vice President, Manufacturing Supply Chain, Nissan Motor Company
Richard Martin Chief Engineer for UK and Ireland, Nestlé UK Ltd
Geoff Mulgan Chief Executive, Nesta


Janice Munday Director of Advanced Manufacturing Services, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Frances O’Grady General Secretary, Trade Union Congress
Sir Dick Olver Chairman, BAE Systems plc
Stephen Pattison Vice President, Public Affairs, ARM Holdings plc
Professor John Perkins Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Jeremy Pocklington Director, Enterprise and Growth, HM Treasury
Angus Robertson Chief Executive Officer, powerPerfector Ltd
Rachel Sandby-Thomas Director General, Business Skills Group, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Ian Scott Group Supply Director, Mulberry Group plc
Terry Scuoler Chief Executive Officer, EEF
Nigel Stein Chief Executive Officer, GKN plc
Lucy Thornycroft Head of Construction and Manufacturing, CBI
Sir Mark Walport Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Government Office for Science
Nigel Whitehead Group Manufacturing Director, Programmes and Support, BAE Systems plc

51

52

Lead Expert Group members

D. LEAD EXPERT GROUP MEMBERS

Sir Richard Lapthorne CBE [Chair] Chairman of Cable Wireless Communications Plc
Professor Nicholas Crafts Professor of Economic History and Director of the ESRC Research Centre
on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy at the University of Warwick
Professor Steve Evans Director of Research in Industrial Sustainability, Institute for Manufacturing,
University of Cambridge
Professor Anne Green Professorial Fellow, Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick
Professor Richard Harris Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, Finance and Accounting,
Durham University Business School
Professor Alan Hughes Director of the UK Innovation Research Centre and Margaret Thatcher Professor
of Enterprise Studies (Emeritus) at the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
Professor Chris Lowe OBE Director of the Institute of Biotechnology, University of Cambridge
Dr Hamid Mughal Director of Global Manufacturing, Rolls Royce Plc
Professor Sir Michael Sterling Chairman of the Science and Technology Facilities Council

SUMMARY REPORT
Printed on paper containing 75%
recycled fibre content minimum.
First published October 2013
The Government Office for Science
URN 13/810
© Crown copyright

Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK - summary report

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK - summary report (20)

More from bis_foresight (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK - summary report