My contribution to a board
I would help directors connect the physical life of an asset with the financial decision being proposed. Generation timing, commercial obligations and the location of cash can all change the meaning of an attractive portfolio total. My experience is in making those relationships understandable enough that a board can choose deliberately, including when it decides to defer a larger commitment or pay less than shareholders initially requested.
I have held one executive directorship since February 2020. That experience has made me more attentive to the difference between advocating a management recommendation and considering the enterprise's responsibilities collectively. An external role would require another adjustment: I would contribute through board and committee work while respecting the authority of the company's own executives. My strongest contribution would be to audit, risk or investment discussions where the financial account needs to preserve the conditions attached to an asset, contract or funding arrangement. I would not offer myself as the technical authority on equipment performance or as a substitute for company-specific legal and accounting advice.
Judgement in practice
01A smaller payment with an explainable cash basis
In March 2025, the consolidated EUR42 million balance did not justify treating every euro as immediately available to the parent. We separated project reserves, committed capital and cash eligible for transfer after confirmation. The board approved EUR12 million of distribution rather than EUR24 million requested, retaining EUR9 million of accessible cash after payment. My contribution was to make the location and conditions intelligible while acknowledging the cost of delaying shareholder returns. The decision did not create profit or imply that all project cash was permanently inaccessible. It gave directors a basis for revisiting the payment question as the position changed.
02An incomplete storage case earned a narrower commitment
The proposed battery's separate revenue estimates did not yet describe one feasible operating schedule. Joint analysis changed the forecast from EUR6.8 million to EUR4.9 million before the stated cost deductions. The board authorised EUR240,000 of dispatch and connection studies while withholding the EUR28 million construction approval. I supported a defined next step with questions the studies needed to answer. The outcome remained open, and the development cost was real. I regard that as a more useful account of judgement than describing unapproved capital as a saving or presenting the revised forecast as verified earning capacity.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the company's assets and obligations, asking management to explain one operating year from production or service delivery through receipt, financing and distribution. Site visits arranged through the executive team would help me understand the physical conditions behind the financial account. I would examine a recent investment that developed as expected and one that did not, focusing on what the board knew when it committed and how later evidence changed its response.
With the chair, I would agree how my experience should contribute to committee work and where specialist learning is needed. I would review the definitions used in capital and liquidity papers, the way assumptions are approved and the route for significant changes to return to directors. During the annual planning cycle, I would pay attention to whether the enterprise uses consistent assumptions across commercial, funding and shareholder discussions. Feedback from the chair and fellow directors would help me keep my questions proportionate. A useful first year should improve collective understanding without turning an external finance director into an informal approver of operating decisions.
Conflicts and their management
My executive role requires careful consideration of any external enterprise with overlapping assets, development opportunities, investors, lenders or commercial counterparties. A company can be outside our immediate technology focus and still create a material conflict through financing or acquisition discussions. Before receiving confidential papers, I would disclose relevant relationships and seek the required consent from my employer and the proposed board. A recurring conflict may make the role unsuitable even if an isolated matter could be managed through recusal.
The twenty-five-day allowance must be tested against the actual board calendar, preparation, induction and exceptional demands. It cannot be treated as a promise that every possible additional responsibility will fit. Current financing and reporting commitments also need to be considered. Independence is a company-specific assessment, and my executive directorship should remain plainly identified in that process. I would rather decline a poorly matched mandate than accept one whose practical constraints prevent an effective contribution. The relationship review should continue after appointment as counterparties, ownership and proposed transactions change.
My independence statement
My current directorship is executive. Any external role requires its own independence, relationship and eligibility assessment; existing board service does not establish independent status elsewhere.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to chair | Would assess any future committee chair request after company-specific induction and appointment review |
|---|
| Ready to join | Audit committee · Risk committee · Investment committee |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 25 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Renewable generation outside competing mandates · Asset-owning infrastructure · Energy services with compatible relationships
- Company type
- Established private enterprise with long-term assets and a clear investor mandate
- Company stage
- Reviewing capital commitments, financing or the relationship between project and parent cash
The seat I am pursuing
I would welcome discussion with an asset-owning enterprise whose directors want to make capital and cash choices more transparent. The business might be expanding its operating portfolio, revisiting financing terms or clarifying how project-level performance supports its shareholder proposition. A suitable board would value technical and commercial expertise alongside finance and would be willing to record an unresolved condition without regarding uncertainty as a weakness in management.
Audit, risk or investment committee membership could make good use of my experience. Any chair responsibility would require a separate assessment after induction rather than follow automatically from the CFO title. I am interested in a mandate with a clear distinction between collective oversight and executive action, and with sufficient access to the evidence needed for thoughtful challenge. The company need not resemble Velrane in every respect. It should have a chair who can explain why my particular experience is relevant and where I will need to learn before offering a settled view. That combination of contribution and curiosity is the basis on which I would consider an external seat.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I claim no IICA registration or assessment status. An Indian appointment would require a separate review of eligibility and the requirements applicable to the proposed role.
- Undertake induction into the new asset base, financing obligations and board responsibilities.
- Understand how the company obtains technical and commercial assurance before investment decisions.
- Keep external oversight separate from the authority exercised in my current executive position.
Board and committee exposure
Served as a director
Velrane Renewables
Executive member of the board
February 2020–present
Shares board responsibility as an executive director; CFO since September 2018, presenting funding, investment and distribution proposals.