​This is a debate I have come across quite a lot when recruiting finance professionals into fresh produce. Does someone need to be qualified, or is relevant experience more important? I don't think there is a straightforward answer.

If a client tells me they need someone who is ACA, ACCA or CIMA qualified, that's obviously a non-negotiable. There are certain roles where the technical side of finance is important, particularly when you're looking at senior positions, reporting, controls and responsibility for the wider finance function. But I wouldn't automatically discount someone just because they aren't qualified. Fresh produce is a unique industry, and experience counts for a lot. Someone who has spent 10 or 15 years working in the sector and understands margins, stock, waste, claims, buying and the commercial side of the business can be incredibly valuable. You can have someone who is technically very strong, has all the qualifications and looks great on paper, but if they've never worked in fresh produce, they might not understand what sits behind the numbers.

And that's where I think recruitment can sometimes go wrong….

It's very easy to write a job description and say "ACA, ACCA or CIMA qualified" because it gives a simple way of narrowing down the candidates. But does the role really need that qualification? If I'm recruiting for a finance manager in a fresh produce business, I'm going to want to know what that person has done. Have they dealt with stock? Do they understand margin? Have they worked closely with buying and commercial teams? Have they dealt with waste? Do they understand the pressures that come with working with a perishable product? Those things matter. At the same time, I wouldn't say qualifications don't matter either. There are plenty of situations where having that technical knowledge from such qualifications can make a big difference.

As businesses grow, finance becomes more complex, and you need people who can deal with that side of things properly. For me, it's about looking at the whole person rather than just what's written on their CV. I've spoken to candidates who aren't qualified but have fantastic commercial knowledge and years of relevant experience. I've also spoken to highly qualified candidates who are technically excellent but don't necessarily have the same commercial understanding. Neither is automatically better. It really comes down to what the business needs. If a client is looking for someone who can come in, understand the numbers, challenge the commercial team and understand what is happening across the operation, I'd probably put more weight on relevant experience than simply having a qualification. If they're looking for someone to take responsibility for a larger finance function, improve controls or deal with more technical areas, then the qualification may become much more important.

I think the biggest thing, particularly in fresh produce, is that a finance professional needs to truly understand the business. It's not just about producing a set of numbers and saying margin is down. It's about understanding why it's down. Was it buying? Was it waste? Was it a customer issue? Was it pricing? Was there a problem with stock? That's where someone with real industry experience can add value.

Qualified vs non-qualified? For me, it's not about choosing one over the other; I'd rather find the right person for the business. Sometimes that's going to be a qualified accountant. Sometimes it's going to be someone who has built their career through experience. And sometimes, if you're lucky, you find someone who has both.