Dabur Chairman Mohit Burman on Family, Wealth and the Art of Investing

Back in the late 1990s, the Burman family was amongst the early Indian business families to successfully separate ownership from management, a philosophy that has helped create enduring, institution-led enterprises. It was also decided, way back in 1998, that none of the Burman family members would get an entry into Dabur India.

They are, in fact, encouraged to set up independent ventures and create another Dabur. Today, all family members have successfully set up their own independent business ventures and are managing those businesses outside Dabur.

A family council was set up then, and a structured meeting is held every quarter where various independent business ventures are discussed. The role of the family council is to look into the broader business strategy and vision of Dabur India. It also meets to offer guidance on personal ventures of family members. This led to the formation of Burman Family Holdings, among the first structured family-office platforms in India.

The intent was clear—to institutionalise the way we manage and grow family capital, while ensuring continuity across generations.

Every father thinks his son is the best. To avoid conflict, best was that no one works in the business. If your son is so smart, he can work anywhere. If I'm a first-generation entrepreneur, of course I want my son to work with me. Yes, take over, carry on the legacy.

Maybe second generation also, you may want your son to take over. The third generation also wants to. My father's generation was fourth generation. There comes a time when to avoid conflict, you don't have anyone coming in and working in your business. And you've seen so many businesses destroyed.

I completed my MBA in 1993 and returned around the time the company went public. My cousin Amit [Burman, director, Dabur India] and I were being trained to join Dabur. However, by the late 1990s, the family decided that no members would continue working in the operating business.

At the time, it was a difficult transition. But in hindsight, the structure made sense. I remain part of Dabur through a defined governance framework.

Each family branch is represented on the board by one member, with the rule that no father-son pair or siblings can serve together. That individual represents the entire branch. In that sense, I am involved, but I am not meant to sit in the Dabur office or participate in day-to-day operations.

Very early on, the family recognised that for a business to grow and endure, it has to be run as an institution. That’s why we put in place a family constitution that keeps promoter family members out of executive roles and entrusts the day-to-day running of the company entirely to professional management.

But more importantly, this is something we live by in spirit, not just on paper. Over the years, the family has deliberately stepped back—even in small but meaningful ways—to ensure there is absolute clarity and independence in how the business is run.

We don’t involve ourselves in operational decisions, we don't draw salaries from Dabur, none of the family members have an executive role in the company or would get an automatic entry into Dabur, and we consciously avoid any overlap that could create confusion or conflict.

If you look at most family businesses, succession tends to be reactive—it happens when the time comes, often driven by circumstances. What a family office does is make succession far more deliberate and structured.

For us, it has helped bring a certain level of clarity and discipline in our various ventures outside Dabur and who wants to invest in these ventures. These are not left to chance or individual interpretation, which is often where conflicts can arise.

Ultimately, succession is not just about transferring wealth; it is as much about passing values, judgement and a way of thinking. And having a structured platform like a family office makes that transition far more seamless, transparent and sustainable over the long term.

Investing is not just about identifying opportunities; it is equally about knowing what can endure. So, while there are financial metrics that we evaluate, we look at investments through a slightly wider lens.

Our philosophy remained consistent: focus on B2C [business-to-consumer] sectors, with an emphasis on brand and distribution. We avoided B2B [business-to business] areas such as power, staying aligned with our core strengths. This approach influenced acquisitions like Eveready [a batteries and lighting company], where brand and distribution were key drivers.

The 1990s proved to be a favourable period, with multiple sectors opening up, creating opportunities that we were well-positioned to capture, like telecom and financial services.  

We recognised that we could not participate in every sector. Telecom, for instance, saw many players enter initially, but over time consolidated into a few national operators. 

Financial services, however, proved more accessible. At the time, several multinational firms were seeking Indian partners, as regulations did not permit 100% foreign ownership. This created an opportunity for joint ventures.  

We entered into multiple partnerships, including with ABN Amro [a major Dutch bank], Fidelity [an American financial services company] for mutual funds, Aviva [a British general insurer] for life insurance, and a non-life insurance venture with three banks and a Japanese partner. We also had a broking business with the Portuguese bank Espírito Santo. 

We also expanded into sectors such as QSR [quick-service restaurants] and health care. One example is Healthcare at Home, a joint venture with a UK-based company, through which we provide in-home healthcare services.

As the family grew, the next generation began taking a more active interest in managing their own wealth. Unlike my father’s generation, where capital was managed centrally, increasing dividend flows meant each member had significant investable funds. It was natural for them to want control over their own investments.

While the family remains closely connected, the investment structure is no longer a single pooled entity. Earlier, all capital would be deployed collectively into large opportunities such as Punjab Tractors or Aviva.

Today, there is greater flexibility—family members are not bound to invest together but often continue to collaborate on select deals.

For instance, we partnered on investments like Eveready and Religare [a financial-services group], while other ventures have been undertaken in smaller groups. Our QSR investments, such as Taco Bell [American fast-food chain], are led by my brother Gaurav [Burman, director of Dabur International] and me, while Healthcare at Home is a collaboration between my brother Gaurav and cousin Anand.

Financial services and sports have been areas of interest for me and have guided my investment choices.

This balance has evolved quite thoughtfully, and it really reflects how we look at capital, both as business owners and as a family. At Dabur, there has always been a clear philosophy of maintaining the right balance between reinvestment and shareholder returns.  

A portion of profits is retained within the company to support organic growth as well as fund future acquisitions, allowing the company to stay focused on long-term growth. Another part is distributed as a dividend to reward shareholders and provide liquidity. 

From the family’s perspective, dividends play a very important role. As promoters, we do not draw salaries from Dabur, so dividends are, in many ways, our primary source of liquidity. But very early on, it was decided that this income should not just be consumed, but productively redeployed. 

We were able to build a robust portfolio of businesses outside Dabur, what is today our family-office platform. Over the years, this approach has helped create significant value and diversify the family’s interests beyond the core FMCG [fast-moving consumer goods] business.

This shift was inevitable. Education has broadened significantly, new wealth is being created, and many young entrepreneurs are succeeding through start-ups. Not everyone today wants to join the family business. When I graduated and returned, it was almost assumed that I would work in the family enterprise. It was only later that we decided to separate ownership from management.

There is no longer an expectation that the next generation must step in. Over the past two decades, compensation structures such as performance-linked pay and stock options have evolved, making it easier to attract top talent.

As a result, the next generation is investing in new ventures, contributing to India’s start-up ecosystem. For instance, I recently met a girl two weeks ago from Bengaluru who launched a fund—Campus Fund—focused on backing student entrepreneurs straight out of university. These are the ideas and initiatives that were far less common earlier.

Second- and third-generation families are also setting up family offices. In fact, the term family office itself was not widely used in India a few decades ago. Today, this ecosystem is driving innovation and new investment opportunities.

It is difficult for me to say. Hard work does not always guarantee rewards, so it is not a question of one approach being right or wrong. There are differing perspectives. For instance, I recently read a view that manufacturing in India needs greater focus and investment. While that may be valid, it is also true that younger generations today are more independent. You cannot compel them to work in the manufacturing sector if they are not interested in it. 

That said, the success of a business is no longer dependent on family involvement. India now has a deep and capable talent pool, and companies can hire skilled professionals to run operations effectively. So, while concerns about certain sectors are understandable, there is no single correct approach.