My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what a favourable industrial measure leaves outside its frame. A lower unit cost may accompany unwanted stock, a customer margin may omit technical demands and a purchasing discount may require earlier cash. Directors need an account of those relationships before they decide which behaviour to encourage. My contribution would be to connect the operating measure with the wider financial and resource consequences, while asking the specialists to explain what the enterprise must actually be capable of doing.
I have served as an executive director since January 2021 and have presented financial matters to the board since becoming CFO in July 2019. That experience has taught me to distinguish management's recommendation from collective oversight. In another company, I would learn its production and commercial context before assuming that familiar ratios mean the same thing. I would bring particular experience in customer contribution, stock movements and capital alternatives, along with a willingness to question whether my first interpretation reflects the business or merely the measures I already know.
Judgement in practice
01Separating a stock movement from a cash claim
A defined EUR9.6 million slow-moving cohort fell to EUR5.3 million through EUR3.2 million of production use and a EUR1.1 million write-down. I asked the board to retain those components and the EUR180,000 review cost, rather than treat the full reduction as cash released. Commercial colleagues had reasonable hopes for older customer variants, while reporting colleagues needed supportable valuation evidence. The decision required both perspectives to be examined. As an external director, I would ask what physically changed, what was recognised financially and which later payments were actually avoided or reduced. I would also ask what the enterprise learnt about the purchase and retention decisions that created the stock. A balance reduction can be useful evidence without being a complete account of economic improvement or proof that the remaining items are free of risk.
02Giving an existing asset a fair hearing
We compared a EUR7.8 million new line with a EUR1.2 million rebuild that engineering considered capable of meeting the current requirement. The selected rebuild retained a fourteen-day shutdown and higher forecast annual maintenance: EUR380,000 rather than EUR140,000. I wanted the board to understand both the cash not committed and the operating exposure accepted. The comparison did not establish that every old asset should be repaired or that the EUR6.6 million difference was a realised saving. For another board, I would ask whether each alternative is credible, which demand assumptions justify extra capacity and what evidence should trigger a later decision. I would also want operators' experience represented, because a superficially cheap option can depend on workarounds and interventions that the investment paper has failed to make visible.
My first year on a board
I would start by understanding the company's flow from customer request to material commitment, production and collection. Site visits would be used to learn the operating language and constraints, with management involved in the purpose and follow-up. I would examine a major account, a material stock issue and a recent investment decision to see how the financial record connects with the work. The objective would be to identify the questions the board needs to ask, not conduct a parallel controller's review.
Through the first planning cycle, I would pay attention to incentives and assumptions shared across departments. A purchasing result may depend on a stock consequence, or a sales plan may require engineering capacity that has not been funded. With the chair and committee leaders, I would agree where my experience can help connect those accounts. I would review subsequent evidence against the original decision without judging it solely through hindsight. At the end of the year, I would seek feedback on the usefulness of my challenge, the respect shown for executive responsibilities and whether the agreed time commitment had proved realistic.
Conflicts and their management
An industrial appointment requires more than checking whether the proposed company makes the same product. Common customers, suppliers, tooling partners and investor relationships can create material connections. I would disclose those through the appropriate process before receiving confidential material. Knowledge of Alverenne's pricing, capacity or customer plans should never become an informal advantage for another enterprise. Some matters may be managed through recusal, but a role involving repeated conflicts may not permit the contribution the board actually needs.
The current executive directorship is not an independent appointment and does not establish my independence for an external seat. That assessment must concern the specific company and requirements. I would also compare the proposed twenty-four annual days with reporting periods, plant investment reviews and the likelihood of exceptional meetings. Induction and preparation need capacity alongside attendance. Employer agreement would precede acceptance. If the calendar or relationships make a meaningful contribution unrealistic, I would prefer to decline rather than accept a role whose practical limits become apparent only after appointment.
My independence statement
My current Alverenne directorship is executive. Independence for any external seat requires a separate assessment of the actual relationships and applicable requirements.