Akiko Suzunara · Chief Financial Officer · Japan
I would bring an understanding of the obligations that sit between a consumer product's commercial promise and its manufacturing reality. Boards see product forecasts, capital requests and financial results, but the connections among them can be difficult to examine in a short meeting. I can help identify which production, customer or staffing assumption makes a recommendation work, and which executive owns the evidence supporting it. My experience also includes explaining those choices within a family-controlled company, where a long relationship or a founder's attachment to a product may matter alongside the spreadsheet. I would not dismiss that context as irrational; I would ask that its cost and purpose be stated clearly. My subsidiary directorship has given me experience of a board's responsibilities within a group, but it is an executive appointment. For an external seat, I would initially contribute through audit or investment oversight under an established committee chair, rather than claim that my finance title alone prepares me to lead the committee.
Served as a director
Subsidiary board; no separate board committee
July 2021–present
I serve in an executive capacity alongside my group CFO appointment, reviewing the subsidiary's service commitments, budget and financial position.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Parent company board
April 2020–present
I present financial results, investment alternatives and significant commercial commitments as CFO; I am not a member of the parent board.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Audit committee · Investment committee |
A suitable seat would have a specific need for financial judgement grounded in consumer manufacturing. I would be interested in a company deciding how much complexity its product range can support, how to assess a new production investment or how to make commercial commitments more visible to the board. I would be less suited to a role whose central need is digital advertising expertise, clinical product evaluation or an international tax restructuring. Those require different experience. I would want a chair who welcomes a practical discussion of ownership preferences alongside financial alternatives, and a management team able to explain the evidence behind its estimates. I am not looking for a ceremonial finance presence or a mandate to approve proposals already settled elsewhere. The appointment should offer a real oversight contribution within a commitment I can honour alongside my current executive work.
When we allowed the private-label contract to expire, I refused to credit the recommendation with replacement sales that had not been secured. The board needed to see the risk that released changeover time might remain unused. In the following two quarters, branded work occupied about two-thirds of that capacity. We reported the remainder as available time, not a financial benefit already earned. This is the kind of distinction I would bring to investment oversight. A proposal can remove a constraint without immediately producing income, and the next management decision determines whether that opportunity becomes useful. I would ask what must happen after approval, who can make it happen and how the board will recognise if it has not happened. That approach also allows a fair review of the original choice: the contract exit can be operationally sensible while still carrying a visible revenue cost during the transition.
The filling-line proposal became more useful when engineering, production and quality described their readiness dates separately. Before that, the payback model implied a single start date for equipment, staffing and the intended product mix. I asked the board to examine the staged alternative with its higher external-production cost and continued supplier dependence stated openly. I did not ask technical colleagues to endorse the finance timetable so that the original number could survive. As a director, I would want the same freedom for management specialists to qualify a proposal without being treated as obstacles to an agreed direction. I would also ask whether the board is approving a whole programme or only its first decision. If later stages depend on evidence not yet available, the minutes and follow-up should preserve that distinction rather than let an initial approval become an informal commitment to everything that follows.
I would spend the opening months learning how the company makes and sells its products, including the points where customer promises become operational commitments. Site visits would be agreed with management and have a defined purpose; I would not arrive as an alternative reporting line for factory staff. I would read a selection of completed investment and launch reviews to see how the board follows decisions after approval. In committee, I would ask which estimates routinely change, which commitments are difficult to reverse and how management distinguishes capacity from actual output. I would be cautious about asking for a new dashboard before understanding the existing evidence. By the second half of the year, I would aim to make a useful contribution to one live product-mix or capital decision. The chair's feedback would help me assess whether my questions had clarified a choice or merely added reporting work. I would also ask colleagues to challenge assumptions I may have carried from personal-care manufacturing into a different business.
An external consumer business could compete with our brands, buy from the same packaging suppliers or use the same manufacturing partner. Those relationships need examination before accepting the role, including activities conducted through subsidiaries or private-label arrangements that may not be obvious publicly. I would disclose relevant interests through a confidential process and agree how changes would be reviewed. I would not discuss my employer's product plans, retailer terms or supplier costs with another board. Where the overlap would repeatedly exclude me from important decisions, I would decline the appointment rather than assume recusal solves every difficulty. My existing executive directorship also requires time and attention, especially during budget and investment periods. The proposed eighteen days must therefore be tested against both organisations' calendars and expectations for exceptional events. I would obtain employer consent before treating it as confirmed availability and tell the chair promptly if my responsibilities changed materially.
My current directorship is executive. The status of any external appointment would need assessment against the company's circumstances and applicable requirements.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not pursued an Indian databank registration. My proposed external contribution is currently focused on Japanese consumer manufacturing; other jurisdictions would require separate preparation.