Presented to the Board or a committee
Mizuhane Energy
Board discussion of customer propositions and marketing programmes
April 2022–present
Presented executive recommendations and their assumptions; no appointment as a director.
Haruka Mizunari · Chief Marketing Officer · Japan
Bring the customer assumption into collective judgement
My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine how an organisation moves from a technical proposition to a customer expectation. The relevant experience includes annual figures whose timing was unclear, partner activity that did not establish understanding and welcome material that left an operating responsibility difficult to identify. Those issues can become significant when a company's growth account relies on customers adopting a service they must live with over time.
My contribution would be one part of collective judgement. I have presented executive matters since April 2022 and have no director appointment. I would need to learn the prospective company's economics and rely on colleagues with engineering, financial and other specialist expertise. I could ask whether a material assumption has been examined, whether a measure describes the event claimed and whether the customer explanation is consistent with the actual service. I would not take over technical approval or commission a separate marketing programme from the boardroom. The value would lie in helping the whole board understand a consequential relationship between the proposition, the evidence and the decision being requested.
Board and committee exposure
Committee contribution
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy committee where customer adoption is a material question · Customer or stakeholder committee where constituted and suited to the intended contribution |
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Technical-service businesses outside unresolved competitive relationships · Commercial-energy businesses whose customer proposition requires specialist explanation · Business-service companies reconsidering the relationship after purchase
- Company type
- A private or listed company able to define the contribution expected from a first-time non-executive director
- Company stage
- Developing a more complex customer proposition or examining assumptions behind partner-led growth
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in a first non-executive contribution where customer adoption and the interpretation of a technical service are material strategic questions. The company should be able to explain why that perspective is needed and provide induction appropriate to a first-time director. I do not claim readiness to chair a specialist audit, risk or technical committee. Membership of a relevant strategy or customer committee would depend on its remit and the wider board composition. A defined advisory engagement may be more appropriate when the need is a narrow marketing question. I would want the form of the appointment to follow the actual responsibility rather than use a board title for work that remains an executive project.
Judgement in practice
A missed campaign window can reveal a question asked too late
The six-week campaign delay followed a review of fourteen examples that had not adequately represented weekend closure. Nine were revised and five withdrawn, with JPY8 million in nonrecoverable media reservation within the programme authority. As an executive, I owned the release recommendation and had to acknowledge why the operating brief was incomplete. In a board discussion, I would ask how management identifies assumptions capable of changing a material proposition before resources are committed around it. The board should understand the consequence of a correction as well as the explanation for proceeding. That does not require directors to approve each campaign example. It requires a useful account of the decision process, the assumptions that mattered and what management changed after challenge.
A participation result should retain the event it actually records
Nine partners completed the learning review, two deferred and one withdrew. The programme spent JPY41 million against JPY54 million authority. I would use that experience to question whether an oversight account distinguishes completed activity from the commercial result it hopes to influence. A smaller spend was not automatically an efficiency improvement when planned participation had not occurred. Nor did completion establish future sales or technical competence beyond the review. The relevant board question is whether the measure supports the decision being requested and what uncertainty remains. I could help identify an inference that has entered the account unnoticed, while leaving management responsible for the detailed programme and the next relationship discussion with each partner.
Clearer orientation and stronger operating performance need different evidence
The handover review clarified alert recipients in eleven of eighteen selected accounts. Engineering supplied the actual responsibilities, and marketing recast the explanation. A board considering a broader customer-experience claim should know that this did not alter the alerting system or maintenance response. I would ask which part of the relationship changed and whether the proposed conclusion requires evidence from another function. The same discipline applies to the unfinished educational workshops: attendance shows participation, not a renewal decision. These distinctions help preserve accountability between functions. They also prevent a useful but limited intervention from being presented as proof that an entire service outcome has improved.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the business model and the principal decisions facing the board, rather than opening with a marketing agenda. Earlier papers, financial information, risk discussions and the chair's account of the board's needs would shape my preparation. Induction should explain how responsibilities are divided between directors, committees and management. With the chair's agreement, I would seek a practical understanding of how the company develops and tests a material customer proposition. I would use that learning to ask better questions in the agreed forum, not create an informal reporting line from the marketing team. During the first year, I would review whether my contribution broadens collective understanding or merely returns to familiar functional concerns. The distinction would be especially important when another director's expertise supports a conclusion different from my initial interpretation.
Conflicts and their management
The initial review should consider competitors, partners, agencies, advisers and customer relationships connected to my current work. Confidential material learned through Mizuhane cannot become an input to another company's commercial decisions. I would disclose relevant interests and understand how the prospective company expects them to be managed as circumstances develop. Practical capacity also deserves an early review. Twenty proposed annual days are a planning indication, subject to preparation, travel, committee work and exceptional demands. They are not evidence that every possible appointment would fit. If the actual responsibilities cannot be accommodated alongside my executive role, I would decline rather than treat a nominal allocation as sufficient. Employer agreement is a condition of pursuing a continuing role.
My independence statement
I would disclose the relationships relevant to a proposed appointment before describing myself as independent. My employment, partner relationships and work with agencies or advisers need consideration alongside any direct financial interest. A different sector label would not be enough to establish that no relevant connection exists. I would seek the prospective company's assessment with appropriately qualified advice and keep the position under review if circumstances changed. I have no current directorship, but that fact does not resolve eligibility or conflicts for an unspecified role. This record describes the experience I could contribute and the limits I recognise. It is not a legal conclusion about appointment or a substitute for the company's own process.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I am not registered in the IICA independent-director databank. My career is based in Japan, and I do not present that status as a qualification for a Japanese appointment. If an Indian opportunity became relevant, I would establish the applicable registration, assessment or exemption position with the prospective company and qualified advisers before relying on any credential. The distinction matters because executive experience in another market cannot by itself settle the preparation required for a particular appointment. Any statement made to a search partner should reflect the steps actually completed at that time, rather than an intention to undertake them later.
- I am developing a clearer understanding of collective oversight beyond presenting a functional recommendation.
- Induction should connect customer assumptions to the prospective company's financial, operating and risk account.
- I would seek the chair's feedback on whether my questions help the board judge a decision rather than direct marketing execution.