One of the world's top 40 manufacturing companies, one of the largest global petrochemicals producers and the biggest private company in the UK, INEOS has risen to prominence over the past twenty years led by three unassuming northern grammar school majority owner Jim Ratcliffe and his business partners Andy Currie and John Reece.
The company's prolific growth and unlikely success have reshaped the industry, though its first two decades have been punctuated by close calls and hard lessons, as well as unprecedented highs.
As they celebrate the company's twentieth anniversary and continued evolution, Ratcliffe and his management team have opened up on the major junctions of the INEOS journey, and their insights into business and manufacturing today.
Fascinating book with true insight into running a production company at scale.
Yet, no second thoughts on the environment or future scarcity of resources, how the UK approach to land exploitation for shale gas might be better (!) than the US and spending an entire chapter arguing why INEOS should be given carte blanche in the UK wrt shale gas production was a bit too much.
Really interesting read on how Jim Ratcliffe, Andy Currie and John Reece built Ineos into the largest chemicals company in the world from scratch over 20 years. Good: Details on how they did it, their differentiating approach to the industry at the time and in particular how they navigated two tricky periods Bad: Sometimes comes across as too congratulatory and isn’t as well structured as one would like
This corporate autobiography of INEOS, although falling into the trap of panglossian writing about itself, does carry some simple, repeatable lessons. The most valuable to me was the unveiling of their federalist, decentralised corporate structure, which is anathema to most modern CEOs. INEOS do not dictate how their subsidiaries are run, they don't foist an awful HR or payroll system upon them. INEOS merely expects certain results and cost structures and leaves management to get on with it. Whilst only the big three partners have equity in the TopCo, I would have been intrigued to see whether this level of decentralisation has been achieved without giving anything away at subsidiary level, though I suspect it hasn't.
Also striking is their repeated and substantial usage of debt - the partners constantly bet the business on certain deals. A more cynical reader might point to this as survivorship bias, but to me it echoes Munger's idea of waiting for the right idea and then sizing it large when it comes along.
Gilf’s hero There was good detail & it gives you a good (and hard to get) insight into his biz But you could tell it was ghost written - and quite narrative heavy