Chief Financial Officer / Japan
Three commitments I asked us to reconsider
- Group annual revenue
- ¥28.6bn
- Year ended March 2026
- Finance colleagues
- 42
- Central and site finance through four functional heads
- Finance experience
- 31 years
- Packaging, product costing and group leadership
Decisions & consequences
01Keeping late retailer claims inside the launch review
A 2022 skincare launch review showed ¥760 million of shipments and a management contribution estimate that the commercial team considered encouraging. The campaign had ended, but retailer support claims were still arriving. Some related to display participation, others to agreed promotional activity. The obligations had been discussed across several teams, and the summary did not make clear which amounts were settled and which remained estimates. The sales director wanted to close the review and move the team onto its next launch.
I asked commercial finance to reconcile the agreements and claims by retailer rather than add a uniform percentage to the programme. We worked with sales colleagues to identify the basis of each commitment and retained a separate record for disputed items. The revised review included ¥64 million of additional support costs and estimates that had not been visible in the initial management contribution view. This was an internal decision account; the controller and our advisers separately assessed the appropriate financial reporting treatment.
The resulting contribution estimate fell below the launch team's original expectation. We retained the product because repeat orders and its place in the range still supported the case, but reduced the promotional scope of the next wave. Sales colleagues lost some discretionary support they had expected to use with retailers. I accepted that the decision could affect distribution and asked for that consequence to be tracked alongside the spending change.
By the final review, most claims had been agreed and a smaller group remained disputed. I do not describe identifying the ¥64 million as a saving: it was a cost of commitments already made or expected to be settled. The improvement was a more complete basis for the next decision. I would have involved commercial finance before the retailer discussions began, so the team could negotiate the total commitment with a clearer view of its limits.
Letting a profitable-looking private-label contract expire
In 2023, a private-label account generated ¥1.15 billion of annual revenue and a positive gross contribution. Its order pattern had shifted towards more product variants in shorter runs. Operations reported that the account used approximately 18 per cent of changeover hours on the shared filling line while representing 7 per cent of its filled volume. The account director argued that a dependable customer was worth retaining, particularly while demand for some branded products remained uncertain.
I asked finance and production to compare feasible schedules rather than rank products by margin alone. We included cleaning, setup and release constraints, with technical colleagues responsible for confirming what could safely change. The analysis showed that the proposed renewal would require either a simpler specification set, longer planned runs or an additional production arrangement. We could not assume that selling more branded units would automatically convert every released hour into contribution.
The commercial team offered revised terms with fewer variants and a more predictable schedule. The customer declined. I supported completing the existing agreement and allowing it to expire, even though the next year's revenue plan would lose the account. We retained an explicit allowance for unused time during the transition and did not credit the business case with hypothetical replacement sales. Customer communication and fulfilment of the remaining orders stayed with the account and operations teams.
Over the following two quarters, branded production used about two-thirds of the released changeover capacity. The balance remained available but unfilled, and group sales were lower than they would have been under a full renewal. The decision reduced competing commitments on a constrained line; it did not turn every hour into profit. My main correction would be to start the renewal discussion earlier, giving the customer more time to consider a different specification before either side became attached to its preferred commercial position.
Rebuilding a filling-line case around readiness
A 2024 proposal sought ¥780 million for a new filling line, with a four-year simple payback in the initial presentation. The calculation assumed a second shift and a product mix that would take time to establish. Engineering could support the equipment specification, but production had not yet recruited the additional shift, and quality colleagues had not confirmed the full introduction schedule. The chief executive wanted to avoid losing another year to capacity discussion.
I asked the project team to separate equipment availability from the dates at which each product and shift could operate. We also compared a limited refit of the existing line with external production for a defined set of batches. The external option had a higher unit cost and required careful technical and supplier oversight. I did not treat it as equivalent to owning capacity, and finance did not decide whether a supplier met product-quality requirements.
The board approved a ¥180 million refit and a first-year external-production budget of ¥65 million, with a later decision on the new line after staffing and product-readiness evidence improved. We removed the original four-year payback from the recommendation because its assumptions no longer described the approved plan. The staged approach kept some production outside our sites and gave operations more interfaces to manage. It also meant we would not capture the full potential unit-cost reduction of the new equipment during that period.
After twelve months, the refit was operating and the external batches had supported the agreed product schedule. The larger investment remained under review; I did not count its deferred expenditure as a permanent saving. The useful result was a decision sequence that matched what the organisation could execute. Next time, I would put recruitment and technical introduction milestones beside the equipment quotation from the first proposal, rather than add them after the payback figure had already shaped expectations.