Chief Executive Officer / India
A more credible promise sometimes commits to less
- A producer-linked fuel business
- 3 plants
- 286 permanent employees and 220 seasonal workers separately counted
- FY 26 shipments
- 96,000 tonnes
- ₹86 crore company revenue; not a verified energy or emissions result
- Engineering, procurement and enterprise leadership
- 34 years
- Five appointments from July 1992; executive director since January 2019
Decisions & consequences
01A procurement estimate included material already doing other work
In 2022 a proposed feedstock programme described 40,000 tonnes across twelve villages as an available agricultural-residue opportunity. The plant-development team wanted to use the whole estimate in its supply case. The local review separated 18,000 tonnes already used for fodder or bedding, 14,000 supported by the reviewed procurement arrangements and 8,000 whose availability remained unresolved. Those were planning classifications for this proposal, not a universal account of every residue in the region or a conclusion that all material outside our programme was environmentally preferable in its existing use.
The commercial sponsor argued that a stronger price could attract more of the volume and that a larger programme would improve collection efficiency. Producer representatives asked what the change would mean for established local uses. I recommended committing only the supported 14,000-tonne scope, with the other quantities kept outside it. The board approved a ₹4.8 crore programme on that basis. Qualified advisers and the operating team retained the required assessments and delivery arrangements; executive approval did not waive site or material conditions.
We gave up the larger immediate supply story and some expected collection efficiency. The 18,000 tonnes were not described as permanently unavailable, and the 8,000 were not silently reclassified as probable supply. Any later proposal would need a fresh account of the relevant agreements and uses. We also avoided calling all residue waste in the commercial narrative. That label had encouraged colleagues to treat the absence of our current purchase as evidence that the material had no other purpose.
The result was a narrower commitment, not a measured ecological benefit or proof that every later delivery would match the plan. We retained the programme cost and the unresolved scope in the board account. My lesson was to ask about existing use before the plant's desired volume enters the first investment model. A buyer can make a new use commercially attractive without making the earlier relationships irrelevant. The chief executive must ensure those relationships influence the commitment while there is still a meaningful choice about its size.
Revising the agreement behind a gross tonne
A 2020 review examined seventy-two incoming-material deliveries after disagreement about how moisture should affect their commercial treatment. Eighteen had disputed moisture-basis treatment. The weighbridge figures alone did not settle the question. A simple illustration made the distinction clear: 1,000 tonnes at twenty per cent water content by total mass contain 800 tonnes of dry material, while 1,000 tonnes at ten per cent contain 900. Equal gross mass therefore did not establish equal dry material. The illustration did not establish equal usable energy or prescribe how a customer should burn either material.
The procurement lead wanted a quick standard deduction that would simplify payment. Supplier representatives objected that sampling, timing and the basis already agreed needed to be examined before a new rule was applied. Razia Qorvani supported a joint account of the technical and commercial questions. I approved ₹38 lakh for review, clearer agreement language and the required measurement and dispute process, with qualified technical owners responsible for acceptance methods. We did not use the illustration as authority to impose an unsupported retrospective adjustment.
Twelve of the eighteen disputed treatments were resolved through the agreed process; six remained pending at the review date. The remaining fifty-four reviewed deliveries had not entered that disputed-treatment group. We kept those classifications separate from any assertion that every measurement was perfect. Finance handled the actual contractual amounts through its authorised process. The company did not label a disagreement as fraud or invent a universal percentage deduction from the small numerical example.
The outcome was a more explicit basis for future commitments and a clearer route for the outstanding cases. It did not erase the ₹38 lakh expense or make every supplier conversation easy. I would now require commercial and technical colleagues to explain the quantity basis together before a programme begins. A tonne is a familiar unit, but the relevant condition attached to that tonne can carry an important business choice. Leaving the condition implicit transfers the disagreement to delivery, when both sides have already incurred costs and the pressure to settle quickly is greater.
Funding paid preparation without declaring every worker fully ready
In 2024 operating colleagues proposed a four-month paid off-season programme for fifty-two seasonal workers whose experience was useful to recurring plant activity. The plan combined defined supervised maintenance-support work with preparation for specified tasks. It cost ₹1.1 crore. Finance preferred retaining the existing seasonal arrangement and bringing people back closer to the production period, arguing that paid off-season work would raise expense before the next season's demand was known. I asked for a bounded programme whose actual work, supervision and review could be examined.
Razia and the qualified operating and safety owners defined what participants could do and what further preparation was required. The scheme was voluntary and did not imply that a training record authorised unrestricted technical work. Human-resources and legal colleagues handled the actual terms through the appropriate process. I supported the expenditure because continuity and useful preparation belonged in the operating model, while accepting that the programme would need evidence before it was expanded to a wider group.
Forty-six participants completed the defined preparation by the review date; six required further work and remained outside the associated task approval. Those counts did not establish a measured productivity gain, a reduction in injuries or readiness for every job at the plant. Paid activity and appropriate supervision continued according to the agreed scope. We kept the six unfinished cases visible rather than describing all fifty-two as successfully trained merely because the programme period had ended.
The result was a funded alternative for a defined group, with expense and incomplete preparation retained. It was not a promise of permanent employment to every seasonal worker or proof that this approach would fit every site. I would involve participants earlier when shaping a future programme, including the work and travel arrangements that influence whether an off-season opportunity is practical for them. The enterprise choice was to examine continuity through a real commitment rather than praise the workforce in the busy season and ignore the conditions under which people could return.
Withdrawing the carbon-neutral headline I had asked for
In 2025 I encouraged a commercial presentation to describe our pellet offer as carbon-neutral. The wording was attractive to customers examining fuel choices and appeared consistent with the agricultural origin of the material. A review showed that our evidence did not support the unqualified statement across the actual supply and use conditions. We had not completed the account needed to address source material, processing, transport and the relevant comparison. The fact that a material was biomass did not settle the claim I wanted to make.
The sales sponsor wanted to retain the headline with explanatory wording, pointing to ₹12 crore of conditional enquiries that mentioned environmental requirements. Those were enquiries, not orders. I recommended withdrawing the unqualified claim and approved ₹48 lakh for assessment and evidence work. Arvind Jelqethi supported the decision after the board reviewed the commercial consequence. Qualified specialists retained the assessment method and the limits of any later conclusion. We did not ask them to produce a favourable label to rescue the original presentation.
The evidence review covered nine feedstock-source groups. Six had the required traceability material complete, while three remained incomplete. We kept that result separate from a verified emissions finding: even complete traceability would not by itself establish the product's full climate effect or a customer's outcome. The company's role as fuel supplier did not give us control of every downstream operating condition. No numerical emissions reduction is claimed in this fictional case.
We accepted a narrower commercial account and the possibility that some enquiries would not proceed under their original conditions. We did not report ₹12 crore as revenue lost, because the enquiries had never become orders. The ₹48 lakh remained an incurred programme cost, and the three incomplete groups remained visible. I would commission the evidential review before asking for a strong environmental headline next time. The mistake was mine: I had treated an appealing category description as though it already answered the specific claim our company would make to a buyer.