Founder Stories: Kiran Mazumdar, Founder of Biocon

She is without doubt one of India's best-known women entrepreneurs. Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, the founder of Biocon, is also a torchbearer of the industry she represents. Outside the community of scientists and pharma experts in India, few have heard or understood the contours of the world of biotechnology before she blasted into the scene. Today, Biocon is a world leader, and it is one of the most respected companies in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. In Shapers of Enterprises, we put spotlight on Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Biocon. Thank you very much for joining this and answering some of the questions or commenting on some of the points. You know, you are an entrepreneur who departed from the professional orientation of your father to institutionalize a modern pan-India science-led institution. I repeat, modern, pan-India, and science-led. What were the building blocks of this chain? Because it's quite a rare phenomenon to build such a company.

So first and foremost, thank you so much, Bhopal, for doing this interview with me, or shall we say a conversation. But, you know, I would like to sort of start by saying that I I never planned to be an entrepreneur. I call myself an accidental entrepreneur. I had planned to basically pursue a career in brewing, would you believe it, after my late father's own profession. Because I was basically turned back by all the breweries in the country saying that this is not a job befitting a woman, that I turned towards entrepreneurship. And I created my own company. So as I always say, instead of, you know, looking for a job, I created my own job. And I think that is the way I started Biocon. And because I was, you know, so deeply interested in doing science, obviously I was very excited with the thought of building a company based on enzyme science and biotechnology. And, you know, that's what really got me into this entrepreneurial journey. If it hadn't been for that gender bias in the brewing industry, I guess I would have never started Biocon in 1978.

That's fantastic, because one of the things that all woke people are advising these days is that women have the dice loaded against them. And your illustrations that had you not been a woman, maybe you would have fallen in line in some other way is interesting. Can you tell us what kind of obstacles you had to blast through before you could get into your own company back in the '70s, right? '77, '78.

So, you know, first and foremost, you know, Gopal, I came back from Australia. In fact, I was the only woman in my brewing program. So even there, there was a natural gender bias because women didn't want to really pursue brewing as a career. And it was because of my late father who really never distinguished between me and my brothers that I actually was, you know, bold enough for whatever you might call it, to go and pursue my master's in brewing science and even seek employment in a brewery back in India. So I think that was thanks to my late father, but I really encountered a huge amount of gender bias when it came to finding a job in the brewing industry. And as I said, it was that which really caused me to create my own company Biocon in 1978, which again happened because of an accidental encounter with an Irish biotech entrepreneur who invited me to partner him and start up Biocon to develop and produce enzymes. Now, because it was so related to the brewing industry and brewing science, and though brewing science is based on enzymes, I found that it was going to be quite an interesting opportunity for me. But believe me, it wasn't easy being a woman entrepreneur in 1978 either. There was a huge gender bias even within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. First and foremost, there was a huge bias towards young entrepreneurs. There was a huge bias towards tech entrepreneurs. The reason I say all this, Gopal, is because In 1978, it was at the height of the License Raj, if you remember, and India was a very under-resourced country. You know, we were on the brink of going bankrupt, if you remember, and we had a huge fiscal challenge. Our foreign exchange reserves were really, really critically low, etc., etc. And here I was trying to set up a high-tech company in a very under-resourced licensed Raj, which was in itself quite a challenge. And on top of that, I was 25 years old. I was a young woman entrepreneur, and everything was stacked up against me, if you know what I mean. So I think I had a huge credibility, you know, kind of mountain to overcome because I just found that at a time when I was trying to start up my own company, most entrepreneurs were retired, you know, sort of individuals who are trying to set up ancillary companies for their large companies from which they had retired. And they had a lot of good hands-on experience over decades, and therefore most banks and any kind of financial investor was quite happy to invest in experienced gray-haired entrepreneurs, not in a bit of a young 25-year-old woman entrepreneur who was trying to start up a biotech company which they didn't understand at all. So I had a huge number of credibility challenges to overcome. I was considered high risk in every sense of the word. I had no business capital to invest. If you remember, even in those days, the entrepreneurs had capital to invest through their savings or whatever they had done. They had collateral to offer because they had their own homes or whatever. I had nothing to offer. I just had a great idea, a lot of conviction, and ₹10,000 in the bank. I don't think that gave any comfort to any bank because those were not the days of venture capital. It was about debt financing. I was trying to approach banks to give me a credit line and a term loan, and they just felt I was too high risk. I was inexperienced. I was trying to build a biotech company which they didn't understand what it was all about. They felt that I didn't have my own capital, there was no capital security to offer, and they thought I was too inexperienced. So all in all, I think I was considered high risk, and I found it very, very difficult to start my company in 1978. But I always found in my entrepreneurial journey that some unexpected door opens somewhere and then it changes the course of your destiny. So in my case, it was this manager of Canara Bank who basically was having a casual conversation with me and realized that I was really, really going through some tough challenges, and he got very excited with what I was trying to do, and he said, let me try and help you. And he was the first one who gave me that very important credit line, all of 3 lakhs in those days. And that got me started, and that also gave me the confidence that, you know, I could actually convince a banker to, you know, lend at risk. So I think that was the first real sort of sense of confidence that I got from that credit line. And thereafter, of course, I had to obtain a term loan from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation That also was something I really appreciated because I had to really, really go through a grilling interview before which I was— I mean, after which they were able to extend a credit, I mean, a term loan to me to basically build my facilities. And as they say, after that, of course, I found it much easier to build my own credibility. But those were tough times. And then of course, I couldn't get people to work for me because again, working for a woman was considered pretty risky. You know, they felt that I couldn't provide job security. And so that was again another big challenge. I had to hire two retired tractor mechanics because that was all I could find in terms of getting people to work for me because they needed some income. They were willing to take up any job and they were the only ones who felt that working for a woman was not an option. So, you know, it was not an option they could be choosy about. So I think those were the kind of times I went through, both in terms of starting to build my own credibility and trying to convince people that I knew what I was doing that I was able to basically take risks, but I understood the risks I was getting into, and so on and so forth. So it was very tough in the first few years of building Biocon.

And another door that opened for you was Mr. Waghul at DDICI. Tell us a bit about that, and approximately when did that happen?

So I started in 1978, and then in 1989, which was like decade later, I was trying to basically scale up a homegrown technology that we had developed in the lab. And I just felt it was a very exciting enzyme technology. And that's what biotech is all about. You've got to innovate, you've got to develop new technologies. And those were the days when India was not very comfortable with in-house research. In fact, they still aren't. But those were the days when they were particularly very averse to homegrown technologies, and they just felt that it was too high a risk. In fact, when I went to the same Karnataka State Financial Corporation who had gladly lent me my first term loan, they were very reluctant to lend me an even bigger amount because I was asking for tenfold of what they had originally lent me. And they felt it was too risky even though I was a good client of theirs. They just felt that it was too risky for them because they felt it was a technology they didn't understand and they felt I was too young to develop a technology for global markets and they actually advised me to go and license a technology that most companies did in India from, as they call it, a foreign company. And I said, well, that's not what my business is about. So I just couldn't get any money, you know, I just couldn't get capital to scale up my wonderful innovative technology or proprietary technology, which was really the heart of all that I was doing. And then it was an accidental breakfast meeting with Mr. Waghul, where he was very interested in what I was doing, and I told him that I'm just not able to raise capital. To scale up this wonderful innovative technology. And he promptly said to me, he said, you know, the timing is perfect. I've just started a venture fund and a venture investing company called the Technology Development and Investment Corporation of India. And he says, you know, this is exactly the kind of company I would like to invest in. And he said, so instead of giving you a loan, I'm going to take an equity stake in your company, which was like I almost fell off my chair because, you know, I never thought that this was a financing model where someone would invest in my company rather than giving me a loan. In those days, the, you know, the interest itself used to be between 14 to 16%, so it was very expensive capital in those days. So to hear someone saying, well, I'm just going to invest in your company and do don't worry about paying it back was music to my ears. So that's what Mr. Bhagur did, and that's how I scaled up the technology. And then a year later, of course, a lot of things changed in my entrepreneurial journey because my Irish partners got acquired by Unilever, your former company, Gopal. And as you very well know, Unilever actually acknowledged the value of my technology, and they promptly bought out TDICI because they felt they wanted a bigger stake in my company, and they couldn't get it without doing that. So I think, you know, I have a great track record with ICICI because the first investment they made in me gave them a fourfold return on investment in less than a year.. And then of course, many years later when I moved into pharmaceuticals, again it was ICICI Ventures that actually took a stake in my new venture and where they made a tenfold return on that investment. So I've had a pretty good track record with venture funding from ICICI and venture funding in general. So I think it's very important for entrepreneurs to realize that when When people invest in you, it is your responsibility to give them a good return on that investment. That's what venture financing is all about. Of course, there are risks associated with technology, but I think if you as an entrepreneur can mitigate a lot of that risk and provide a return on investment to investors, I think you build up very good credibility.

So everything that you have said so far demonstrates that you need a lot of grit. Grit being accepting a reality, working your backside off trying to overcome those realities, and being persistent. You know, those are the three characteristics of a person with grit. Tell us a bit about grit and what's happened post-liberalization. Is the kind of grit required— you still require grit, by the way, But it must have changed a bit.

So you know, you're right, every entrepreneur needs to have a sense of purpose, a very deep sense of conviction, and you know, a sense of perseverance because nothing comes easy, there are no shortcuts. Every successful unicorn you see today hasn't gained success overnight. I mean, every one of these entrepreneurs has thought about their idea, shaped their idea, built credibility, and made it into a success because they were able to convince others that it was a great idea. I think that's the first lesson of grit that I learned, which was if you believe in an idea, then if you can convince and persuade others that it's a great idea, that's the first win that you basically have, and that sort of almost kind of instills a sense of grit in you. Then comes the next thing, which is about really translating that idea into a business. And once you do that and you make your first sale, you know, I remember when I made my first export the huge sense of achievement that I got was something I'll never forget. And I think that's what most entrepreneurs get very kick with, you know, I mean, they really get very, very self-motivated by their first sale, or their first big contract, or whatever it is. I think that's what you really need to do to convince yourself that you know, you have started on your journey in a very, very positive way. So I think for me, it was really about translating that idea into a business, into substance, and into, of course, a sale. So that was the sort of sense of grit I had in those days. And as you very rightly said, you know, India was in a very different situation because there was very difficult access to capital. We were under-resourced. So I remember when I was trying to build my factory, there was a cement shortage, a steel shortage, and a capital shortage. So, you know, I had to deal with all that, and it was quite tough. But, you know, you as an entrepreneur, you're very determined and you want to succeed. So, you know, I think you're willing to put up with all those challenges and find ways, and that's what makes you resourceful. That's what makes you resilient, and that's what helps you to be persevering.

Saying all this that you have said, which seems to be very valid, how long did it take you to start showing a small profit, or were you one of those companies that kept making losses for 20 years?

No, no. In fact, I was in the fortunate situation of being profitable in year 1. Even though it was a tiny profit, that was very, very pleasing to know that even in year 1, I generated a small profit. So I was not today's entrepreneur who doesn't think much of making huge losses, but I was the one who basically believes a lot in running a profitable business with very low debt. I'm very adverse to leveraging at a very high level. So I'm a bit conservative and cautious. I don't like to over-leverage the company. I like to work well within the debt ratios that are permissible, and I like to really focus on profits.

So, you know, what I learned in Unilever and in Tata's is that, well, once they've done something, they look like Rambo guys. Having been inside, I know that by and large, one exception or the other apart, both Unilever and Tata are fairly conservative. Now you're the third person who's telling me that I'm a bit conservative in these matters. What would you say to a 28-30-year-old yuppie who comes and says, Madam, give me your advice on this point about profitability and making losses for first 20 years. One of the IPOs has even said they don't know when they'll make a profit, you know, and yet they've had an IPO.

Well, I think today's business model is so different, Gopal, that I don't think either of us can give advice to young entrepreneurs. Today's tech entrepreneurs are about building a credible business model, not based on profits, but basically of scaling an idea and scaling it based on the consumer base, the customer base, and that's what it's all about. So you keep showing top-line growth, and that's what is supposed to be the surrogate indicator of the scale and potential of that business. And that's what people invest in. So today, whether it's a food delivery company like Zomato, they basically are building their sort of value on the number of customers they have. Or Nike, who's also building their valuation based on the number of consumers they cater to and new consumers that they attract every day. And these are the new tech companies, whether it's financial services, whether it's food delivery services or any e-tailing company. Even if you look at Byju's, which is an edtech company, again, it's the number of subscribers they have to their edtech programs.. So I think the new way of judging value and valuations by investors is to basically say this is a long-term game. I think it is about how many— you know, in the good old days it used to be called eyeballs. If you remember, in the dot-com days it was about how many eyeballs can you get. Today it's about how many customers, subscribers, and consumers can you get.. And I think they hope that one day you can turn hugely profitable because now your business is so large in terms of your consumer base and your customer base that you can quickly turn it around through whatever business you can, you know, pick.

So Kiran, if you were put on a platform to tell Indian companies, now I'm not talking of startups, you know, the older companies, why it is essential to get research orientation? Because as you said in passing, and something I agree with, it's very tough to make Indian companies do any research. It just seems like a huge effort and waste of money from their point of view.

How would you advise them? So first and foremost, I've always believed, you know, Gopal, that innovation, which really relies a lot on research in our kind of industry, is the only way to get nonlinear growth. If you're just a me-too company imitating another business model or some other kind of some other person's business, then I think you will not be able to basically break apart from the crowd. You will not be able to get nonlinear growth. You'll probably be able to just get incremental growth, nothing wrong with that. But if you really want to get into a different orbit or a trajectory of growth, it has to be based on innovation because that's where you can lead, that's where you can basically dictate your own business fundamentals in terms of the business you're shaping. And that's why I think research is very important in our kind of business. We know that when you develop a new molecule, you are not referencing any existing molecule, and therefore you can create your own value proposition in terms of risk-benefit and get a much higher return on that investment than what you could of just licensing somebody else's technology and paying a royalty. So I think that's what it's about, Gopal, and I think the most important thing is that remember India has the talent pool. We have the talent pool, we have the capabilities, we are innovating for others, and they are actually, you know, creaming the benefits of all that research and innovation that we are developing in this country. I just feel we would be foolish not to do it for ourselves, and that's why I've always kind of requested the government to come up with research-linked incentives rather than just production-linked incentives. So that mindset has to change. You know, everything is about production, production, production, which is very important because we are becoming like the factory of the world after the sort of new recent sort of, you know, alienation of China, let's put it, from the manufacturing ecosystem. But having said that, I think the only way you can add value is through innovation. We can see that in our own industry, whilst we account for 30 to 40% of the generic industry by volume, okay, in the world, in the global pharmaceutical market, we only account for less than 6% of the value of the generics market. So you can see that this is a terrible financial return for a country like ours which has—

when you say we, you don't mean Biocon, you mean the Indian pharma industry?

I mean the Indian pharmaceutical industry, which has it so skewed that you are the pharmacy of the world in terms of volume, but by value, you're a minuscule part of that pharmacy.

So, you know, you have built a— I know you'll cringe when I say an empire, if I may use the word, which is valued today at, I don't know, $10 billion, $8 billion, somewhere in that region, and with a very good return ahead of the cost of capital. So everything is attractive about what you have done. And the question that I want to ask you is, In doing this, one of the things you did, which to me struck me as an extremely bold and if I may say so risky thing to do at that time, you had specialized in solid-state technology. And then you sort of jumped out of that swimming pool into the next swimming pool on the basis that you— that's a much bigger pond. Now, most people are very reluctant to give up what they started with, you know, Hindustan Lever, very reluctant to give up Dalda. Tatas are very reluctant to give up Tata Motors or steel. And that's understandable. Azim Premji was very reluctant to give up Banaspati, which is what he started his company with. How did you come to this bold conclusion and make a success of it?

I think the fact that I was a scientist, I'm very experimental by nature. I like to experiment with new businesses, new models, challenge the status quo. Keep leveraging technology to a more exciting area. So that's how it started for me, you know. So for 20 years, I made enzymes and enzyme technologies, which was great. I mean, I had leadership in many of these enzymes that I was developing and selling to the world markets. But then there came a time when I said, why am I only making enzymes? Can I not use these technologies to do something else? And that something else turned out to be biopharmaceuticals. Then when I looked at the success of the software services sector, I said, hey, can't I do something in research services? If they are offering, you know, sort of— if they are sort of the back office of the big corporations in the world, cannot I be the laboratory for many of the pharmaceutical companies and do a lot of the backend research for them. So, you know, that was the way I started Syngene, which was the research services company I started in 1994. And then, you know, I started, of course, biopharmaceuticals, and then about 5 years or 10 years into that journey, I said to myself, hey, you know, just as generics are so successful for India, shouldn't I look at biosimilars? Because that's another big opportunity which no one's looking at. And because I was basically trying to create, you know, a business model in healthcare pharmaceuticals based on access and affordability, I thought biosimilars was the way to go. So I think that's why I got into biosimilars and started building a new business where I wanted to play in global markets, unlike many of the Indian companies who also tried to do that but said, no, our market is only India and maybe some of the developing world countries. And I said, no, I want to play in the big league because unless I play in the big league, I cannot build that credibility for myself. You know, I've always wanted to change India's profile in the pharmaceutical business by saying we are capable of very, very complex pharmaceutical development, we are capable of very high global quality, and we are capable of producing all this at global scale. So that's what I was trying to do when I got into biosimilars. So I think that's the way I've always looked at the business, whether it was enzymes, I was a global player. Whether it's biopharmaceuticals, I'm a global player, whether it's research services, I'm a global player. I think when you're a global player, I'm sure, Gopal, it will resonate with you that you basically tend to conform to global benchmarks and global best practices. And to me, that's really the way I wanted to build my organization.

You know, you actually launched, I think you've already launched or about to launch, I'm not terribly 3 biosimilars in the US, and you've got a partnership with Mylan, which will take its own course of relationship. What did it feel like when you got your first biosimilar approved in the US? An Indian company getting something approved in a very sensitive industry, you know, pharma is not exactly like auto component or something else.

No, that was a huge, huge win for us because, you know, that was a great eureka credibility moment for us because there were a lot of naysayers out there in the West who would say that these are such complex molecules that, you know, most Indian companies I don't think will be able to crack it. That was the kind of messaging that was going out. In the global markets. And to be the first company to get US FDA approval for a very complex antibody was just a vindicating moment in that sense, because I think I was able to prove the naysayers wrong. I was able to establish a huge credibility for Biocon, and I think that gave us the huge confidence with which to pursue other biosimilar programs.

So I understand, I hope I'm right in my statement, that you will offer these products at about 20% of the cost of their similars, but this is a biosimilar and is going to replace some other product.

Is that about right? And well, right now, you know, obviously when you enter the markets of US, which is a very, very attractive market, you don't want to, you know, make it a cost-competitive game. So I think initially, of course, you will get to a price point which is attractive, which is of course lower than the innovator, but you know, you still want to get as much as you can. But over time, of course, it gives you the competitive edge to compete with anyone on a price basis. So whilst we, you know, try to kind of get an optimal pricing in Western markets, the same products of course are being sold at very affordable prices like in countries like India, for instance, where we are selling the product at a tenth of what it used to cost patients in India. And, you know, most recently we got the world's first interchangeable label for our insulin Glargine. And again, we have been disruptors of price in India for sure, and now we will be disruptors in global markets.

So It's almost like a eureka moment in the sense of what CK Prahalad used to say, bottom of the pyramid. I'm sure you didn't have CK Prahalad image in your mind when you pursued this path, but you have proven at least one company which has proven that CK Prahalad had a very valid point. You just got on to that sort of route of being bottom of the pyramid through your own research and solid skill base.

So let me put it this way, Gopal. I think CK Prahalad's model was very different to mine. For the simple reason that CK Prahlad basically felt that the bottom of the pyramid had a huge, huge base. And if you could basically cater to that base at a very affordable price point, it was a huge business to be made. Now, in my case, obviously, healthcare is a little more complex because the bottom of the pyramid lack access to healthcare. So what I'm trying to do is to help governments create universal healthcare systems, which can cater to the broad needs of the masses. So whilst I don't directly cater to them, but indirectly, I'm trying to disrupt.

Yeah, I think that's a very valid point. You're not scratching people who are non-consumers because of price. You're just offering better value to all consumers, and helping to create an access for people. You know, as a young company, I do recall I was in Unilever in those days, you got into a very unequal relationship with Unilever. But you have mentioned to me in the past that you learned a lot from Unilever. So out of every relationship, while some things may be a bit sticky, you learn a lot. What is it that you learned from Unilever?

So you're right, you know, when Unilever took over my Irish partners, I was suddenly thrown into this huge partnership with a mega multinational company, and it was like, you know, a David and a Goliath kind of situation. But of course, Unilever was very keen on sort of controlling me and making me conform to all their systems and standards. But the way I played it was quite interesting. I was very keen to absorb their best practices because I knew that as a large multinational, they had the best practices. I was an amateur, I was just learning, and I said, wow, what better way to learn than to learn from such a big partner. So I very gladly asked them to share with me all their best practices, and I was very happy to conform to all their systems and best practices, which is what helped me to professionalize a lot and very rapidly. So But at the same time, I didn't want to be controlled by Unilever and the shareholding prevented that control. So whilst I sort of embraced and adopted all what Unilever wanted me to adopt, at the same time, I was doing my own thing and I think Unilever did respect me for that. We had this mutual respect for each other. One thing Unilever did teach me which I really treasure till today was the value of patents. You know, I was developing so many proprietary technologies, I was filing patents, but I really didn't know how much they were worth. It was Unilever who made me understand why it was important for them to buy that stake in Biocon and constantly try and control, have a controlling stake in Biocon because of the IP that I had created. And I didn't even know how much it was worth. I was just filing patents and just because I was so excited with all the great technologies we were developing. But I had not bothered to sit and value those patents. It was Unilever who helped me to value those patents and make me realize what it was all worth. And then that gave me a sense of IP and the whole understanding of intellectual property and the whole understanding then how do you monetize IP? Because when I finally sold my enzymes business, I didn't sell it on the basis of how much enzymes I was selling. I sold it on the basis of the IP I had created, and that got me the huge valuation that most people were surprised with.

You've also emphasized a lot about, despite the difficulties you had in the beginning of attracting anybody to join you, when you were a garage startup. And subsequently, you have acquired a phenomenally talented group of senior executives. Tell us a bit about what startups can learn from your experience. Tell us your experience, and the startups can pick up their lessons from that.

So I think startups are quite smart, Gopal. I think, you know, basically, when they get an idea, if they start attracting capital, I think a lot of young people start realizing that this entrepreneur is on to something. And then it's, of course, you know, a natural magnet that a lot of good techies want to join such companies. So in my case, obviously, I was starting this very interesting biotech company. And I was able to attract a lot of young engineers from IIT, and then, of course, MIT and many of the young people who are very excited with what I was doing. So I think entrepreneurs have to be inspirational, entrepreneurs have to give that sense of purpose and commitment and conviction into what they're doing. And the moment you're able to share your entrepreneurial business model or your idea with like-minded people, I think you can actually attract a lot of good talent. That's what I've been able to do. You've got to spend time with intelligent people, you know, with good scientists, engineers, techies, you name it, and you want to tell your story. You've got to infect them with your enthusiasm, and if you can do that, I think you can attract very good talent because it's not about the money. It's about, you know, I got the best of talent because I told them this was about building a company that was going to create history. And when you sell that kind of story that join me in creating some history for our country, I think that tells a very different story and it's not about the money. It's about being a part of something that's very exciting, something that's pioneering, something that's going to make a difference and something that's going to really, really even, you know, build their own stature.

So, you know, I don't think you had any significant attrition. Some people must have joined and left, but by and large, your team has been with you, your senior team particularly, as I have known it. That's part of the reason is that you have sold them the idea that you're creating an institution and this is not just about money.

Would that be a right assumption? Absolutely, Gopal. It's the same for many, many of the tech companies in Bangalore, if you think about it. Whether it is Infosys and its co-founders, who stayed with the company forever, whether it's me and my founding team, I would like to call them that, who have stayed with me and stayed the course, or it's any of these first-generation entrepreneurs who have had their founding teams who believed in what they were doing and they all built it together. So it's this business of I haven't built Biocon on my own, I built it with my founding team. And that's a very clear message that all startups must remember. No single individual builds companies, it is teams that build company and the founding team has to be very strong has to be purpose-led and has to basically believe in what they're doing.

And so occasionally we hear a story of some entrepreneur nowadays, modern entrepreneurs who acts like a Lalaji and, you know, kicks people around. You're saying things like decentralization and empowerment have to start from day one?

Absolutely. I've always believed in empowering and enabling people. And you know, one of the things I've always said, people have asked me about what is my work culture, and I always say that, you know, I always believe in creating a problem-solving work culture. So what I do is I throw challenges at people, especially my leadership team, and I say, hey, listen, you've got to solve this problem, you've got to overcome this challenge. That's what will build leadership qualities in you.

And I think that's worked very well for me. You know, somebody asked me a question, and I'm going to put that question to you, which is people are impatient to get— people meaning senior people, the leadership— are impatient to get results. They want a problem solved, and they want to thoroughly test it and then get ahead. And in the process of pushing their team, they sometimes rub them up. And I said, listen, it's an aberration once in a while that will happen to any human being.. But that's not the leader that I have great time for. Leaders are people who can carry his leaders so that they become leaders in turn.

Would you agree with that? Absolutely. I always tell my leadership team, you've got to be a cricket coach. Your job is not to do the batting or do the bowling. Your job is to basically get your team to know how to bat well. Tell them what their mistakes are, tell them how they can improve, and then let them show you how they can score. Ultimately, the team is all about winning, right? And good coaches help their teams to win. And good coaches are, in any sport, about managing a very, very, you know, multifaceted team because you don't have a homogeneous team, right? Each one has its own set of skills, and that's what good leaders are all about. How do you get the best out of people? How do you get people to do their jobs in a way that wins? And that's what it's about. So I always tell people, leaders, you're coaches. You cannot be kind of, you know, autocratic leaders who command and control style of management just doesn't work.

You know, so far we have talked about innovation, grit, we have talked about people power. And there's a last one I want to explore with you in the last few minutes, which is you seem to be really, really, if I may use the word in a positive way, hung up on governance. You know, you lay a lot of emphasis on governance. Why did that come to you and how does it play out within Biocon in the board and so on?

You're right, you know, I just believe that one of the very important hallmarks of great companies is to have a very fair and transparent governance structure. And, you know, I for one have always believed in high values of integrity, transparency, and disclosure. And I try to see how much I can adhere to those tenets. I think when you're in a business like ours, which is about saving lives, you have to display very high levels of ethics and integrity. I always say that for me, a blockbuster drug is not about a billion dollars, it's about serving a billion lives. You know, so that's what it's about. I've always believed that I'm in a humanitarian business and I must display very high levels of reliability, trust, and integrity because people must believe that whatever I do at Biocon is done with this kind of level of ethics and reliability because it's about saving lives. I don't want any of my products to get out of our doors which are substandard, which cannot, which are not performing as they should be. So that is the first principle. The second thing is when you want to have good governance, you must have checks and balances, Gopal, as you know. So whether it's at the board level, whether it's at the management level, I've always believed that you must have checks and balances. I mean, you can ask any of my colleagues, I don't think I'm a command and control leader at all. I mean, anyone can come and tell me, listen, I don't agree with you, Kiran, and I'm willing to listen to them. And I would say very often I agree that I'm wrong, and I basically change my decision. So I think that's a very important part of trust, you know, when you have a leadership team that knows that Your boss is a fair person. I've always wanted to be a fair leader where I just don't do things because I'm biased or I have a certain opinion, but that I'm fair, that I give people a chance, that I allow people to fail and make mistakes, and I'm not going to basically say off with your head at the first mistake you make. I think those are my traits because I haven't I've just used common sense. That's me, that's the way I relate to people, and I think that has also ingrained in me a very deep sense of governance because I think in anything we do, whether it's the way we govern our cities, there also I've taken a very strong role in seeing how we govern our own cities better because we know there's so much corruption and opaqueness in the way we govern ourselves that I felt at least at the company level, I wanted to be a very high standard of governance.

Very well said, very well said. The fact that there is, you have to be, your company has to be an island, if essential, without casting aspersions on public governance, but public governance also has a lot to learn from good corporate governance. Kiran, that's fabulous, and you've given a lot of advice to young entrepreneurs without being preachy about it. Just that last question, if you, since we are coming to India at 75 next year, if you were asked a question about something about business institution building, do you think India lacks that skill on a wide basis?

And what is the importance? You know, first and foremost, Gopal, I want to tell you that In the 75th year of India's independence, I think India is a very exciting country for young people. Do you really need to build business institutions in this day and age? I'm not sure because I think what you really need to build are credible businesses, ethical businesses, and as you know, today is the time of ESG, environment, social governance.. And I think that's what it's about. I mean, there are so many opportunities for young entrepreneurs to do good and make this world a better place. That's the excitement I'm thinking about. Yes, I think, you know, building institutions is great, but that often does not address a lot of the opportunities that are out there. We might have missed many of the opportunities as we try to build large scalable businesses. Today's opportunity for young people is not about very large businesses. Today, people can build smaller businesses, but if they do it well, many of them can come together and create huge wealth for the country and for themselves. So I would like young people to understand that this is a very exciting time because digital disruption and you know, these new technologies have really changed the way we think about business, the way we think about wealth creation. But underlying all that has to be a sense of purpose, has to be a sense of ethics and values. And we must make sure that we do everything that makes things better.

Wonderful. It's been a great pleasure, Kiran. I know my time is running out, and I must let you get back to your work. But it's been a wonderful conversation, and thank you so much for making this possible. Mini had this great idea, and while I was able to participate with it, you have done a great job in responding to the question with so much spontaneity.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Gopal, and thank you, Mini. All the best.