Quick Links
Connect us
Directors Databank (Empannel Yourself)
Become a faculty
Blog
Become an Awards Assessor
Publications
Contact Us
IOD Special Talk - Public and Private Sector Perceptions: The Real Work of Value Creation
Let me begin candidly. As someone who has spent a significant part of my career in the public sector, I am aware of the perceptions that often accompany institutions and individuals like us. In gatherings such as these, largely comprising private sector leaders, there is a certain preconceived view of the public sector boards and their functioning. I do not intend to contest that perception rhetorically. Instead, I would rather place a few realities on the table.
In the private sector, boards are typically curated. There is a clear alignment of purpose, even among independent directors. This alignment is not accidental; it is designed. In contrast, public sector boards are structurally different. They are not curated in the same manner, nor are they always aligned in the conventional sense. They comprise individuals drawn from diverse arms of government, finance, administration, and independent backgrounds. This diversity can, at times, appear as fragmentation.
Boards, whether in the public or private sector, aren't expected to have all the answers; rather, their value lies in providing a fresh perspective to help management sharpen and perfect their strategies.
However, it is important to recognise that Boards, whether in the public or private sector, aren't expected to have all the answers; rather, their value lies in providing a fresh perspective to help management sharpen and perfect their strategies. Their role is to engage with, challenge, and refine what management brings before them. In my experience, even in public sector enterprises, once the management demonstrates clarity of direction, value creation, and a credible pathway forward, alignment follows. It may not be immediate, but it is rational and it is real.
I would also like to address the increasingly dominant discourse around ESG. Governance, in my view, is non-negotiable. What is unethical remains unacceptable, irrespective of the sector. On the environmental and social dimensions, however, the conversation requires greater nuance.
I represent a mining organisation. It is easy to speak of environmental preservation in absolute terms, but the reality is more complex. The very infrastructure that enables modern life is built upon extraction. The question, therefore, is not whether we engage with the environment, but how responsibly we do so, and what alternatives we evaluate along the way.
Consider the energy context in India. Thermal power continues to form the backbone of our energy system. If we were to import coal from distant geographies, transport it across continents, and then utilise it domestically, the carbon footprint would be significantly higher than sourcing and using it within the country. Similarly, transporting coal across long domestic distances adds to the footprint when compared to more proximate utilisation. These are not abstract considerations; they are real trade-offs that policymakers and operators must navigate.
The transition in energy must be just and calibrated. For a country of our scale, with over a billion people and vast developmental imperatives, an abrupt transition is neither practical nor equitable.
The larger point I wish to make is that the transition in energy must be just and calibrated. For a country of our scale, with over a billion people and vast developmental imperatives, an abrupt transition is neither practical nor equitable. Conventional energy sources will continue to play a role in the medium term, even as we invest in cleaner alternatives. The task before us is to manage this transition responsibly.
Allow me to illustrate this through the journey of GMDC, the organisation I represent. A few years ago, our performance indicators reflected a challenging phase. Revenues and profitability were under pressure, and the organisation was not realising its full potential.
Through a focused effort on operational efficiency, asset monetisation, and strategic clarity, we have been able to reverse that trajectory. Market confidence has improved significantly, reflected in a substantial increase in market capitalisation. More importantly, the underlying asset base has been reassessed and expanded, revealing the true scale of value embedded within the organisation.
For me, however, the more meaningful measure is comparative performance. When benchmarked against larger and more established peers, including national level enterprises, our organisation has demonstrated strong value creation over a relatively short period. This is not merely a financial story; it is a story of institutional renewal.
At the same time, we remain grounded in the reality of our core business. We are, by our very nature, an energy fuels company. Much of our current value is derived from lignite, a resource that we have learnt to utilise efficiently. Yet, we are fully conscious that the future will demand diversification.
Our strategy, therefore, operates on multiple horizons. In the near term, we continue to optimise our existing assets. In parallel, we are expanding into adjacent areas such as thermal coal, where we have acquired significant resources and possess operational capability. Looking further ahead, we are investing in critical minerals, including rare earths and copper, which are essential for the next generation of energy systems.
This transition is not without its challenges. Emerging sectors may not yield immediate profitability, but they are essential for long term relevance. It is a conscious decision to invest today for a future that is still taking shape.
I would now return to the broader question of public sector value. When a state-owned enterprise performs well, its impact extends beyond balance sheets. The profits generated contribute directly to the public exchequer, enabling governments to invest in infrastructure, welfare, and development. In our case, a significant portion of our earnings flows back to the state, creating a multiplier effect that benefits society at large.
There is also a human dimension that is often overlooked. Our operations span regions that are not always economically advanced. Through our engagement, including targeted CSR initiatives, we work closely with local communities. The emphasis is not on large financial outlays, but on meaningful, context specific interventions. Listening to local needs, building trust, and responding with agility often matter more than scale
In reflecting on this journey, I would submit that the dichotomy between public and private sectors is often overstated. Both operate under different constraints and incentives, but the underlying objective of value creation remains common. When management is purposeful, when strategy is clear, and when execution is disciplined, even structurally complex systems can deliver strong outcomes.
Ultimately, the measure of any organisation, public or private, lies in its ability to create sustainable value, adapt to change, and contribute meaningfully to the society it serves.
Back to HomeAuthor
Roopwant Singh, IAS
Managing Director Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, (GMDC)
Owned by: Institute of Directors, India
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles/ stories are the personal opinions of the author. IOD/ Editor is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in those articles. The information, facts or opinions expressed in the articles/ speeches do not reflect the views of IOD/ Editor and IOD/ Editor does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
