In today’s high-stakes corporate world, finance isn't just about numbers but more about navigating complexity, managing trade-offs, and often, making judgment calls beyond what spreadsheets offer. That’s precisely where Richa Singh, Chief Financial Officer at Pernod Ricard India, pitches her book, Beyond Numbers. Unlike conventional books on finance, Beyond Numbers dives into the messier, more human side of decision-making. In a conversation with Fortune India, Singh offers insights into how CFOs must move from the sidelines into the heart of strategic decision-making. Edited excerpts:

The book makes a strong case for why today’s contemporary CFOs must look beyond numbers and truly understand the business. In theory, CFOs are expected to drive transformation, but in practice, it’s often the CEO who sets the tone. Especially when you read the case studies mentioned in the book. Are CFOs simply the conscience of the system occasionally heard but rarely followed, because the CEO ultimately drives the agenda?

You are 100% correct. Early in my life as a young CFO, I struggled with this myself. But what’s important is that a CFO develops the maturity to influence the CEO. That’s the critical skill: learning how to guide, educate, and shape your CEO’s thinking toward the right path and the right decisions.

If you're promoted too early, or you don’t have experience in the art of influencing, you won’t be able to do it effectively. Simply telling the CEO, “The numbers aren’t looking right” or “this is what we need to do from a legal perspective” is not enough. You must have a soft influence: build a relationship, develop personal rapport. Once you have that trust, you can begin educating the CEO on governance, legal requirements, and the long-term health of the business.

But yes, you’re right; even if a CFO is balanced, knowledgeable, and experienced, but without CEO buy-in, then it becomes an uphill battle for the CFO. In listed companies, or those with stronger governance frameworks, the board can sometimes play a role. If your immediate manager, the CEO, isn’t listening, sometimes someone above them, like the board, can influence in a subtle and respectful way. But that’s the last resort. And yes, sometimes you do hit a dead end when you believe things are going wrong, and they’re unlikely to change. At that point, the CFO is left with two options: escalate where appropriate, or exit. Unfortunately, those situations do happen.

We have often observed a pattern where CFO eventually quits, and skeletons, in some cases, tumble out later. The probability that a CEO, however experienced, will actually listen to the CFO is often low, especially because a CEO’s incentives are so tightly linked to growth. If the CEO by nature is aggressive, the guardrails a CFO puts in place often fall on deaf ears. In that sense, is the CFO in today’s world a helpless figure?

I’ll take two examples to respond to that, and you are correct, at least to an extent.

Let’s first look at a situation where the company is genuinely in it for the long haul. Yes, the CEO might be driven by short-term bonuses or tempted to take aggressive calls on sales or growth. But in such cases, the CFO today has multiple avenues today, and I’d say things have improved over the past five years. For one, external auditors are now much stronger. So, in that sense, the CFO has an ally in external auditors beyond the board. There’s also the regulatory framework, which holds CEOs accountable under company laws, especially if something is reported or goes wrong.

Importantly, CEOs themselves are evolving. Many of them today are more finance-savvy, they want to learn, they’re willing to engage. In such cases, where ambition is high, but intentions are clean, the CFO can still influence decisions, especially when supported by structure, governance, and regulatory norms.

Now, there’s a second scenario, and we can’t rule this out. In some companies, particularly high-growth startups or those driven by stock options and market share ambitions, governance can still take a backseat. In those instances, the CFO might find their inputs ignored or overridden. That’s when they must seriously consider escalating matters to the board, or even reporting to Sebi, because the ultimate responsibility still rests with the CFO.

In the book you mention about gross margins as a metric of efficiency as profit on paper means little without real cash. In startups today, especially when a seasoned CFO from a corporate setup, with real cashflow experience, joins startups where cash burn is normal, can a CFO really shift that narrative and say, “Let’s focus on unit economics and sustainable growth”?

It really comes down to balancing sustainability with investment for the future. The key operating metrics — gross margin, cash flow, and unit economics — all need to work together.

There’s no negotiation on gross margin, even for startups. If a startup says, “I’ll lose money today but eventually make 30–40% margins” — the reality is, once they try to raise prices to hit those margins, consumers may walk away, and the business fails. I’ve seen that happen more than once.

Let’s assume the management is aligned on maintaining a reasonable gross margin, say 25%, and there’s a credible path forward to 35%. Then comes the question of cash. In startups, it’s okay to be in an investment phase, but the key is: where is the cash going? If you’re burning cash to buy sales, that’s a red flag and as a CFO, that’s a hard “no”. But if the burn is going into capex, brand awareness, or building long-term capabilities, then it becomes a question of timing: By when can we start transitioning to a more sustainable strategy? What does the path to profitability actually look like?

The CFO’s role is to set that discipline and ensure the business team is aligned by holding everyone accountable to that transition timeline, because cash is critical in a startup environment.

In most startups, it’s all about chasing growth at any cost. For every rupee of revenue, they’re burning two rupees of cash

As a CFO, you’d ask: When’s the break-even point? What’s the strategy to get there?

What if the CEO says, “If that’s the question you’re asking, this isn’t the company for you.” Can the CFO persist with a question that investors themselves may not be asking?

I’ll answer this in two parts. First, what a CFO should do, and second, how that situation can be avoided.

Let me take the example of Zomato. Early on, they had a reasonable gross margin, but they were burning cash to build infrastructure, but they had a clear plan: once they had X number of riders, they would become cash positive. That kind of clarity and forward planning is critical for any startup. There needs to be a roadmap that says: By year three or four, we’ll hit these metrics, and here’s how we’ll get there.

Now, if a well-meaning CFO joins a company and the CEO isn’t willing to listen, that becomes tricky. But here’s the thing: the CEO–CFO partnership is fundamentally a stewardship role: it’s about governance, yes, but also about service to the business. So, what should the CFO do? Present the case clearly to the CEO, and ideally to the board. Document the alignment (or lack thereof), and make sure everyone understands the risks. You’re essentially saying: “Here are the pros and cons. This is a business risk we are knowingly taking.”

In the end, as CFO, you’re not the captain, you’re the navigator. You flag risks, provide direction, and guide. But if the captain insists on steering into choppy waters, your role is to document, advise, and remind periodically. There not to point having a mutiny. At some point, you have to follow the leader.

What happens wherein an entrepreneur has a grand vision, but CFOs can struggle to align because the numbers and the vision don’t always seem to match. For instance, in hyper-growth levered conglomerates, should CFOs get more comfortable with what I call “calibrated chaos”, wherein an entrepreneur’s ambition feels almost too bold or unpredictable for the CFO to handle?

At senior levels, be it CFOs or CXOs, cultural fit becomes incredibly important. You have to be able to gel with the team and the ethos of that business. If you’re not comfortable with a fast pace or ambiguity, then maybe that environment isn’t for you.

This is less about rules and more about temperament. If, as a person, you're not comfortable with that level of risk, then put the right processes in place to ensure transparency. Make it clear whose business decision it is, and many entrepreneurs are okay with that. I’ve seen CFOs say: “I don’t fully agree, but this is your call. I’ve documented my view.” And the business moves on.

Boards are also increasingly accepting of this model. I’ve seen board resolutions where the CFO clearly states the risk, and the board still votes to go ahead. That’s fine. It’s part of a mature governance setup.

But eventually, the CFO has to ask themselves: Am I comfortable being this bold?

Being a great CFO often means having the courage to disagree openly, and still be able to maintain a strong, respectful working relationship with the entrepreneur or CEO. That level of boldness and objectivity isn’t for everyone. And if you find yourself in a place where you’re saying “no” every single day, maybe it’s time to look for an environment that’s more in sync with your own appetite for risk.

Because being bold, consistently and constructively, is not easy. And it’s not for everyone.

Very few CFOs go on to become CEOs. In those exceptional cases, are they, at times, constrained by their background--of being too focused on financial discipline--to take bold growth bets a CEO needs to make?

 I’m smiling because I’ve performed CEO roles. I’ve been the CEO of two startups, and if you ask my teams, they’ll probably tell you I was very aggressive. Intuition and ambition are personality traits, not just job functions. So, I wouldn’t generalise. My current business head is an ex-CFO. Atul Singh, who was the MD of Coca-Cola India, was an ex-CFO. The current global CEO of Nestlé is also an ex-CFO.

But these are exceptions rather than the norm. So, what are the building blocks for a CFO aspiring for the top job?

 You pretty much nailed it when you asked me this question. So, risk taking ability, agility, boldness, vision, competitive understanding, these are the traits needed before a CFO can make that jump into a general management position. And that transition is not always easy. It’s meant for those who show the aptitude and mindset for it.

I’ve seen ex-CFOs become MDs, and I’ve never found them lacking in ambition or aggression. What some may initially lack is the experience of leading large, commercially oriented teams and building positive momentum. That’s something they can learn and develop sometimes. But in terms of agility, and aggression? They absolutely have it.

In one of the case studies mentioned in the book, the CEO call the CFO a “a worrier and not a warrior.” Isn’t this symptomatic of corporate cultures that romanticise revenue-at-all-costs and marginalise caution. In this case where the story ended poorly, what real options does a CFO have?

There was one key thing that could have been done differently. The CFO should have had a more bold and open conversation with the CEO before invoking an audit.

Even if the CFO was bold enough to call a spade a spade, the CEO would have still maintained his position.

So, what happens is that there's finally an audit that that's what unveils everything. Amit [mentioned in the case study] being the CFO could have had the open discussion: “Boss, if you don’t listen to me, I’ll have to get an audit done. And if the audit findings are bad, it could have serious repercussions for all of us — including you.”

Look, it’s really about putting the problem on the table. It’s about being courageous, transparent, and open with your opponent. What happened instead was the CFO resorted to a backdoor tactic: of getting the audit initiated without fully engaging the CEO. He could have taken a different route: “You’re leaving me no option. I am worried. My job is to ensure stewardship. Yes, maybe I am a worrier but let’s figure out if there’s something going wrong.”

Also, it’s critical for young CFOs to have a direct reporting line, whether a board member or senior functional lead, who can give them perspective and guidance. Leaving them isolated and reporting only to business can, actually, sub-optimise the company’s performance.

How can a CFO distinguish between tactical tolerance versus strategic complicity?

There needs to be thresholds. An occasional 3–4% deviation might be okay but also make it transparent to the next level.

Can your articulate on that point?

Let’s say the monthly revenue target is 100. The CEO stops at 93 because the goods won’t reach the customer in time, and technically, you can’t book the sales under accounting norms. Or maybe a customer is allowed ₹100 crore in credit, but as a one-time exception, you push it to ₹105. These are minor deviations, and they do happen. As a CFO, you can sign off on them occasionally.

But the key is to be transparent. Let your next level know that the deviation was taken to meet the number for the month and document it. From day one, work on transparency. Many CEOs try to build a very strong informal connect, but that shouldn't blur your objectivity or make you fearful.

But that clarity only comes with experience of having been there, done that. If you're newer to the role, one job old? What happens if the mentor is the entrepreneur and the CFO ends up “developing” the same “risk taking ability” as an entrepreneur?

If you’re ever in doubt and don’t have a mentor, speak to your external auditor.

But auditors are designed not to be entrepreneurial

If you don’t have a reasonable mentor whom you can reach out to when you are in doubt, speak to external auditors because eventually whatever you are doing will be picked up by them. Technology and their systems have really evolved, so it's better to share proactively. And most external auditors are very practical, and they understand 2% deviation. They know what’s commercial versus what’s questionable. Senior partners and external auditors are a good ally. I can cite my own example. I work in a very tough sector with lot of requirement and compliances, so I speak to my external auditors when I am in doubt.

But the context matters. In MNCs, there are laid down processes but there when you work with entrepreneurs the thresholds for deviations will be much “wider than usual”

Look if the promoter-led firms want a good valuation and sustainable business, they’ll toe the line. If they’re chasing short-term gains, well…they’ll do what they want.

Should CFOs today have forensic capabilities?

CFOs today carry a broad range of responsibilities, and while they don’t need to be forensic experts themselves, they absolutely should be well-versed in how audits, investigations, and forensics are conducted. You’ll always need to work closely with forensic specialists, but you should know enough to guide the process. That said, there’s always a line. Forensic work is typically handled by a third party — not in-house — to ensure objectivity and independence. But a CFO needs to know where data points lie, how different parts of the business are connected,

But when that happens isn’t that a commentary about the vulnerabilities and weak internal checks, especially in a “high growth” company?

Internal audit, usually, works on sample checks. But the creativity of people knows no bounds. In large, well-governed organisations, these issues are usually minor and unlikely to snowball into major fraud. The bigger risk arises when the business model or operations evolve quickly, and internal controls don’t keep up. That’s when someone finds a gap and exploits it or an unintended accounting issue crops up. That’s what we’re increasingly seeing in many recent cases.

In the case study about data versus power, the protagonist had the numbers, but someone else had the authority. What would you tell young finance professionals about navigating that trade-off?

I’m not sure if this will fully answer your question, but at its core, this is the classic boss-employee conflict. Don’t work in silos. Wherever possible, share your data, while ensuring confidentiality, with more than one person. Create support systems that can question the decision-maker on why certain calls are being taken. Try to drive objectivity into the process. And most importantly, develop your influencing skills. The word influencing will come up again and again because today, finance is not just about numbers, it’s also about making sure your manager is making the right decisions.

Coming to deviation, in trade there is dumping of inventories at the dealer level to show sales. In banking, for example, there is an accepted unwritten rule where customers are nudged for more deposits or requested not withdraw big sums to boost year-end CASA numbers. Is this culture of managed optics just an open secret?

It’s fast changing, because with digitisation, things are getting very transparent. More than organisations, the Indian government has become very vigilant. They do GST reconciliations, tax reconciliations and those can be revelatory. Then questions come: why did inventory move, why was the payment lower this month while you shipped so much? That gets very difficult to explain. Most mature organisations are very digitised now.

So if an auto dealer is dumped with vehicles an OEM can no longer show it as a sale?

It’s possible but questions will be asked. Also, its illegal, as it is considered anti-competitive and can be penalised by the government.

It will be brought to government notice only if the dealer complains, but that’s rare considering that they are at the mercy of the companies

The world has changed. The cases against Amazon and Flipkart came about because the dealers complained to the CCI. In the case of BMW, dealers complained against the company for dumping. While these things are happening, it happens mostly in smaller or less mature organisations to meet monthly or quarterly targets. But honestly, it’s a futile exercise because over a 1–2-year trend, it catches up. You can do a couple of quarters, but then what? If I pump up one quarter, the next quarter my sales will tank. That’s the rationale I drive in my organization. In large-scale organizations, this has stopped because the next quarter gets stuck. It might still be happening elsewhere, but the CEO needs to understand that you can’t play this game every quarter. You increase your cost of doing business as auto dealers will come and ask you for warehousing space or working capital. Your account receivables go up. It starts showing on your financials. One quarter — maybe, for a crisis quarter — but not 3, 4, 5 quarters in a row.

In the case study about MNC tax restructuring from a high tax country to low tax was financially clever but ethically ambiguous that, ultimately, backfired. How do you draw the line between short-term gains and long-term ethics when navigating tax structures or regimes?

In this case, the problem was that the decision-making was left to a very junior level. That person was thinking in terms of a one-year, two-year, three-year horizon — their own promotion, next assignment, etc. But decisions around tax structures, legal entity changes — these are significant and carry reputational and legal risk. They should never be taken at that level.

These kinds of decisions must sit with the CXO or board level. In well-run companies, this is where a clearly defined delegation of authority (DOA) framework comes into play. If the DOA had been structured properly, it would have flagged this as a senior-level call, not something to be signed off casually. So, fixing the DOA, and enforcing it, is critical. It helps prevent exactly these kinds of short-sighted or ethically grey decisions.

Is there a way for CFOs to distinguish between being smart versus crossing the line into risky structuring, especially since the cost of a regulatory rap can be very high?

At a senior level, especially in a reasonably sized company, when you're exploring complex tax structures, the safest and smartest approach is to always seek both internal and external tax and legal opinions from well-established, reputable firms. If you've done that due diligence, you're usually on solid ground.

Not every restructuring is wrong. There can be legitimate value in changing sourcing or operations to optimise for tax, especially if you're genuinely adding value in an offshore location that aligns with tax treaties. That’s perfectly acceptable.

But when it starts to resemble a shell transaction or feels like a “hawala-style” workaround with no real substance or value creation, that’s clearly on the wrong side of the line.

In a cross-border structuring, is there a disproportionate risk for a CFO?

Absolutely. And it's critical for CFOs to understand the gravity. Under India’s Income Tax Act, violations can attract steep penalties. But under the Customs Act, the implications can be far more severe, including non-bailable arrest provisions. There is the possibility of a DRI investigation too. India takes a very strict view on CFO accountability.

In the cough syrup case study, the CFO’s decision to reduce viscosity helped cut costs but didn’t that risk compromise efficacy? From what I have read, clincal studies say thicker syrups are known to coat the throat better, offering more relief. Do you think prioritising cost over patient experience in a therapeutic product runs the risk of eroding long-term trust and, hence, the masterstroke move, in turn, was a wrong decision?

It’s a fair question. But in this case, efficacy was tested and validated by the company’s QA (quality assurance) and medical teams. Being a large MNC, any formula change, including viscosity, goes through stringent lab trials. Yes, the original process using inward sugar syrup created a thicker feel, but it was prohibitively expensive. When the shift to a lower viscosity, efficacy may have dipped slightly, but it remained within acceptable thresholds, and the product hit a price point the consumer was willing to pay.

So, while a company is aware of the nuances, the consumer may necessarily not

The goal here wasn’t to claim superiority but to enable broader trial and access. If the thicker version had significant efficacy benefits, it could have been priced as a premium variant.

Isn’t charging a premium a far better option from a product positioning point of view, especially in India where premiumisation is the buzzword?

The focus in the case mentioned was penetration. In India, price often dictates access. So, if core pharmacological deliverables are intact, tailoring for affordability isn’t a compromise, it’s a strategic necessity. Here it was necessary to establish the brand as it was a new launch versus claiming superiority or launching a brand variant.

Is viscosity elimination still a reality in pharma as it becomes a strong commercial lever?

Unfortunately, yes especially in highly price-sensitive markets like India. Viscosity is often adjusted not for pharmacological reasons but to manage cost structures and align with pricing benchmarks. But as long as the active pharmaceutical ingredients meet therapeutic requirements, companies tend to play with excipients such as sugar or thickeners to control costs. That’s why we see more sugar-free syrups today not just as a health trend but because alternatives such as aspartame are cheaper than sugar and produce a thinner consistency.

So, in what way can a CFO act as the conscience keeper of a company or must they simply make peace with the reality?

Look business exists to make money but in the right way. I tell my teams to operate as if the company were their home. You serve what’s safe, clean, and good at home, so why should it be any different in business as your stakeholders are your consumers.

It’s a good slogan but is that for real?

As CFOs, we are stewards not just of financials, but of trust: from consumers, employees, and the government. I worked in FMCG companies I’ve consumed these products myself and served them to my family, knowing that every regulation, every quality standard has been followed. It’s about responsibility.  Of course, we all know too much sugar is bad for health. So, don't have it every day. It's called a happiness factory. You have it once a week. So, being a conscience keeper means ensuring transparency in accounting, taxes, disclosures and training teams to always do the right thing.

If you had to summarise your key learnings, what would be three practical guidelines for someone aspiring to be a CFO or build a strong career in finance?

First, be solid on your fundamentals: accounting, controls, and understanding of the numbers. That’s your foundation. Without that, nothing else holds.

Second, communication. Finance professionals often underestimate how critical it is to clearly and confidently articulate ideas: whether it’s to influence a CEO, explain a risk, or tell the story behind the numbers.

Third, you must build a deep understanding of the business. Not just the P&L, but what really drives it: customers, operations, strategy, competitive forces. That’s where real value creation happens. So, in short: master the numbers, learn to communicate and influence, and develop a strategic understanding as a business leader does.