• Not all husbands of high powered professionals are arm-chair executives. Know profile and career milestones of Mr. Buch. Plus insights on how working with Hindustan Unilever contributes to your professional growth.

India is strange. On one hand we lament the absence of women Chief Executive Officers and on the other we attack Regulator’s husband without appreciating his corporate background. 

This article is not about the SEBI Chairperson but is about the professional profile of her husband Dhaval Buch. Given the nature of attacks by a political party, I decided to check on Mr. Buch’s work profile. 

At the outset I state to have met Mr Buch only once in 1986, when I was Management Trainee-Finance and he Production Manager Personal Products at Hindustan Levers (HLL) now Hindustan Unilever’s Sewri (HUL) factory. Further, both of us worked with HLL, me from 1986 to 1993 and he for longer.

Not all husbands of high powered professionals are arm-chair executives. I reviewed Mr Buch’s Linkenin profile (11.9.24 about 5 pm) and did some basic research. Read on.  

1. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 1979 to 1984 (IIT Delhi graduate)

2. Joined as Management Trainee Technical in 1984 – In the 1980s getting into HLL as a Management Trainee was amongst the most coveted jobs in the manufacturing sector. 

3. From Trainee to Executive Director, HLL in 22 years was an achievement. He was ED Supply Chain from 2006 to 2010.

As executive director he headed entire SC function of HUL covering manufacturing, logistics and planning.

Just to give you a sense of the numbers. According to HLL’s 2009-10 Annual Report, it had net sales of Rs 17,524 crores and a Net Profit of Rs 2,202 crores. The report shows material cost, carriage and freight at 64%. It means Buch was responsible for app Rs 11,215 crores of cost.  

If you see of 18 of the 2008 Annual Report, there is a picture of Dhaval receiving the “Express Logistics & Supply Chain Award in the category ‘FMCG Manufacturing Supply Chain Excellence’. Pg. 25 of the same report states, “Mr. Buch has held a series of assignments in Manufacturing, Household Care Category and New Ventures including a stint with Unilever in UK during 1993-95. In 2006 was appointed as an Executive Director Supply Chain. Mr. Buch was elevated to the Board of Directors of the Company in April 2008.”

4. Dhaval Buch joined HLL’s Board in 2008. Source Economic Times

5. Senior Vice-President Unilever Global, Singapore 2011 to June 2014 - According to this 2010 Economic Times report, “Dhaval Buch, a member of Hindustan Unilever board, has been snapped up by Unilever as the Anglo-Dutch parent looks to learn from the insights gained by its units in emerging economies and deploy them back in key western markets. Buch, who is now the executive director for supply chain, will now be a senior VP at Unilever Global.”

Hindustan Lever’s has a long tradition of providing its best managers to Unilever for e.g. Nitin Paranjpe, Harish Manwani and Vindi Banga.

6. Chief Procurement Officer, Unilever January 2014 to 2019 - As CPO for Unilever he was responsible for procurement of app $ 25 billion plus of spend. He led a large team of procurement specialists from across the world.

So 1984 to 2019 i.e. for 35 years he worked with HLL and Unilever. In all these years did one hear any employer or group cast aspersions on him?

Do tax payers expect that a professional with such a profile would become a home husband because his wife is appointed as a Regulator?

If the answer to the question is yes tax payers must prevail upon the government to pay salary of the spouse too. It need not be indexed to inflation but could be based on the cost to company of the last job done. On a serious note, beyond a point it is more about professionally fulfilling roles than money.

Given his depth of experience SMEs might not seek his services. It is only big business groups like Mahindra and Tatas who might find his expertise relevant. And yes their companies may be listed.

If the government is serious about attracting and retaining talent from the private sector, it must protect such talent from political attacks and sensitize talent to possible political attacks. Hence, managing perceptions is as important as the truth.  

I am not commenting on what Mr. Buch is doing currently. At about 62, 35 years of his life were spent with Levers. The stint is long enough to make him the professional he is today.

To know how HLL/HUL contributed to their professional growth I spoke with a few ex-Leverites.

1. Worked with HUL for 23 years.

It made me who I am today - I joined at a tender age of 21 - my value system was not fully formed either let alone any skills or competencies to navigate the corporate world. There were no books or classrooms but everyday (superlative) behaviour from our leaders who walked the talk. It made me learn and develop.

2. Worked with HUL/Unilever for 26 years

Within few days of joining HUL, I realised that it has a unique culture of raising the bar all the time, not by mandate from top but by learning from and observing others. Of the many contributions that Unilever made to my professional (and personal) life, I would pick out one: Unilever taught me that seeking help from others is a sign of strength, not weakness.

3. Worked with HUL all my working life

I worked all my life at the Company in several functions, roles and locations. One works with the best and becomes a better manager and person, professionally and personally. Working in various roles and different levels prepares you for the strong challenges in global or local roles. It’s a meritocracy and here no favouritism is displayed.

4. Worked with HUL for 22 years 

I worked in HUL and Unilever for 22 years after starting off from college and joining as a management trainee. It gave me the professional grooming and growth in a culture which was universally admired in the corporate world. Its culture was very strongly rooted in developing talent and providing varied experiences to young managers. Leadership was always exemplary and inspirational.

Speaking for myself, the seven years I spent gave me training, exposure to complexity, challenges, values, confidence to jump into and swim out of difficult situations and the importance of understanding consumer needs. These learning’s gave me a head start in every job and as a Business Consultant.

Those making accusations need to make a stronger case is my 30,000 feet view. Is mere receipt of rental income of Rs 2.17 crore from a regulated entity (MINT editorial 13.9.24) improper? The key point would be if the market rental value of the property is significantly lower than Rs 2.17 cr! 

It is for Mr. and Mrs. Buch to defend themselves against accusations made.

However, it is strange that a foreign Research company wonders why the duo has not responded to accusations? Source It is not known if the said company, under Indian laws, has a ‘Place of Business’ or a legal entity incorporated in India.  

Why do Indians give so much importance to what the West says?   Read about Complexity of U.S. Tax system and Comparing the state of Democracy in India and USA and Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

I am more interested in knowing details of the KRA (Key Result Area) system said to be introduced by the Chairperson and pay scales of SEBI employees. Reference & SEBI Mandates KRA Integration with Central KYC Record Registry

I am happy that SEBI Chairperson has highlighted that the surge in F&O trade volumes. “The surge in F&O trade volume has become a macro issue, says SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch. The derivative market has seen a 42.8 per cent rise in the financial year 2023-24, according to an RBI report.” Source MINT. It is better to speak out pro-actively than after the damage is done.

As an investor I wish to know the nature of disclosures SEBI mandates its whole time directors to make. As long as disclosures are made to the Board and Finance Ministry it should be fine.

Best Wishes to All.

Note – Errors if any are unitended and without malafide intent. Read, reflect and form your own opinion. My intent is to share a perspective not defame or hurt sentiments.