Compliances

12 Aug 2026

Kolkata| August 12, 2026 An unusually thick ozone layer was detected 21–23 km above the North Bay of Bengal, giving scientists new clues about how ozone-rich air moves through the atmosphere. SummaryScientists have detected an unusually high concentration of ozone over the North Bay of Bengal at an altitude of about 21–23 kilometres. The layer was thicker and more ozone-rich than normally observed over eastern India and remained for more than 24 hours.Researchers say the event was not mainly caused by sunlight-driven chemical reactions. Instead, evidence points to ozone-rich air being transported horizontally, moving downward and becoming compressed in the lower stratosphere. The finding offers new insight into atmospheric circulation over the Indian region.  What Made Ozone Build Up Unusually Over the Bay of Bengal? The discovery came during Phase-I of the NetRAD-ASMA campaign, a nationwide atmospheric research initiative involving scientists and institutions from across India. Researchers combined weather balloons, ozone-measuring instruments, atmospheric radars, satellite observations and atmospheric models to track the movement of gases through different layers of the atmosphere. Scientists detected the unusual ozone layer at around 21–23 km above the North Bay of Bengal, significantly lower than the altitude where ozone is typically most concentrated. Under normal atmospheric conditions, peak ozone levels are generally found higher in the stratosphere, at around 25–30 km. Researchers found that ozone levels in the unusual layer were much higher than the normal levels recorded over eastern India.  The study reported an increase of around 50 nanobars above the long-term average, with the enhanced layer extending roughly 2.1–2.4 km vertically. The increase was also not a brief event. Measurements showed that the unusually high ozone levels continued for at least 24 hours and were detected during both day and night. This suggested that sunlight-driven chemical reactions were unlikely to be the main cause of the sudden ozone build-up. So, Where Did the Ozone Come From?Scientists combined data from several sources to understand how the unusual ozone layer formed.  During the campaign, researchers used ozonesondes and radiosondes, along with a network of Stratosphere-Troposphere and Mesosphere-Stratosphere-Troposphere radars. They also analysed satellite observations from Aura MLS and INSAT-3DR, supported by atmospheric models and reanalysis data to track air movement. Together, the evidence suggested that the ozone was transported into the region from elsewhere in the atmosphere rather than being produced locally. Researchers detected a persistent downward movement of air in the lower stratosphere. Their analysis suggested that ozone-rich air had been transported into the region and then gradually moved downward. As the air mass descended and became compressed, the ozone concentration increased, creating the unusual layer observed over the Bay of Bengal. Scientists also considered the possible role of mid-latitude air moving into the region and other atmospheric processes. The location of the event was significant because the North Bay of Bengal lies in a region where different air masses and large-scale atmospheric movements can interact. The North Bay of Bengal is a key region for deep atmospheric convection and is influenced by several major circulation systems. These conditions make it an important area for understanding how ozone and other atmospheric gases move between different layers and regions of the atmosphere. The study also shows why observations from multiple locations are important. During the campaign, data were collected from Balasore, Gadanki, Nainital, Silkheda and Thiruvananthapuram, along with regular observations from other meteorological stations. Comparing measurements across these sites helped provide a broader picture of atmospheric movements rather than relying on a single location. The finding does not indicate the formation of a permanent ozone layer or an ozone hole over the Bay of Bengal. Instead, it points to a temporary and unusual increase in ozone concentration in the lower stratosphere. The significance of the event lies in what it reveals about atmospheric circulation. It offers direct evidence of how large-scale air movements can transport and redistribute ozone between different parts of the atmosphere. The study, published in Earth and Space Science, offers a deeper understanding of the Indian subtropical atmosphere and the complex ways in which large-scale air movements can redistribute ozone far from the levels where it is normally concentrated. The significance of the finding, therefore, goes beyond an unusual rise in ozone over the Bay of Bengal. It is a reminder that the atmosphere is constantly moving and reshaping the distribution of gases within it. By combining detailed observations with atmospheric modelling, scientists can better understand these unexpected changes - and what they reveal about the behaviour of our atmosphere.   Primary Sources  Das, S. S., et al. (2026). “Unusual Enhancement of Stratospheric Ozone Observed Over the North Bay of Bengal: Results Inferred from NetRAD-ASMA Campaigns-2024.” Earth and Space Science.DOI: 10.1029/2025EA004791Original research paper — Wiley Online Library Press Information Bureau, Government of India — Ministry of Earth Sciences. “Scientists Discover Unusual Ozone Layer Above North Bay of Bengal.”Source: Official Government of India release on the NetRAD-ASMA findings.Press Information Bureau — Ministry of Earth Sciences NASA/JPL — Microwave Limb Sounder (Aura MLS).Source: Satellite-observation data referenced in the ozone study.NASA Microwave Limb Sounder ...Read more

10 Aug 2026

Kolkata | August 10, 2026 Employee mental health is moving beyond the HR department as companies, regulators and investors look at wellbeing as part of the “S” in ESG. The real test, however, is whether such programmes create measurable improvements in workers’ well-being- not merely whether an activity was organised. Quick SummaryWorkplace mental health is becoming harder for companies to treat it as a private HR matter. Employee-assistance programmes, counselling access and wellbeing initiatives are gradually appearing alongside broader workforce and social disclosures, while burnout, absenteeism and attrition are gaining attention as potential business risks. But measuring workplace wellbeing remains difficult. A company can report how many employees had access to a programme without showing how many actually used it, completed it or benefited from it. The gap becomes even wider for blue-collar, contract and gig workers, who may have fewer avenues to access mental-health support. As investors pay greater attention to the social side of ESG, the question is shifting from whether a company has a wellness programme to whether it can demonstrate a meaningful outcome from it. Can Employee Wellbeing Become an ESG Metric Investors Can Trust? For years, workplace mental health was largely treated as an HR responsibility. Companies organised counselling sessions, wellness workshops and employee-assistance programmes, often presenting them as workplace benefits aimed at improving employee morale. That approach is now changing. Mental health is gradually being linked to wider business concerns such as employee retention, absenteeism, productivity, workplace safety and governance risks. For investors examining the “S” in ESG, employee wellbeing can offer valuable insight into how responsibly a company manages one of its most important assets- its people. This shift comes at a time when corporate sustainability reporting is also becoming more structured. Under India's Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, workforce-related information has become part of the broader discussion on responsible business practices. This creates an opportunity for employee wellbeing to move beyond general promises and become an area that can be assessed through clear evidence. But an important question remains: What should companies actually measure? Reporting that an employee-assistance programme exists only shows that support is available. It does not reveal how many employees used the service, whether they received continued support or whether the programme led to meaningful improvements. The gap between providing access and demonstrating results could become one of the biggest tests of credibility in workplace wellbeing reporting. The same applies to spending. A large budget for wellness programmes may look impressive in a sustainability report, but the amount spent alone cannot show whether the investment reached employees who needed support or whether it produced meaningful results. The challenge becomes even greater when looking beyond corporate offices. A wellbeing programme designed for salaried employees with access to private healthcare may not work in the same way for blue-collar, contract or gig workers, who may face different working conditions, financial pressures and barriers to accessing support. The real question, therefore, is no longer simply whether Indian companies are paying greater attention to workplace mental health. But whether their ESG reporting can provide credible evidence that these efforts are actually improving employees' wellbeing and working lives. Are Companies Measuring Wellbeing or Just Counting Participation? One of the biggest challenges in bringing workplace mental health into ESG reporting is measurement.  Companies can easily count the number of wellness programmes conducted, workshops organised or employees covered by an assistance programme. But these figures do not necessarily show whether employees are actually benefiting from them or not. This distinction is important because a programme can reach thousands of employees on paper while having very little real impact. A counselling service may be available across an organisation, for example, but only a small number of employees may use it. Others may hesitate because of stigma, concerns about confidentiality or simply a lack of awareness about the support available. This makes utilisation, completion and outcomes more meaningful indicators than programme availability alone. For investors, the difference can provide a much clearer picture of a company's social performance. Saying that 90% of employees have access to mental-health support shows the scale of the programme. Reporting how many employees actually used the service, completed the intervention and continued receiving support provides a better indication of whether that investment is making a difference. The same caution applies to employee burnout and turnover. High attrition may signal problems within the workplace, but it cannot automatically be linked to mental health. Factors such as salary, workload, management practices, career growth and job security can also influence an employee's decision to leave. This is where stronger ESG reporting can provide greater insight. Companies should also establish a clear baseline before measuring change, otherwise improvements in employee wellbeing cannot be meaningfully compared over time. Rather than relying on a single indicator, companies can look at employee turnover, absenteeism, engagement, workplace safety and access to wellbeing support together. Examining these factors side by side can help identify whether workforce wellbeing is becoming a broader business risk. Another important issue is who is actually covered by the data. A company may report strong wellbeing support for its permanent employees while excluding contract workers, outsourced staff or gig workers from the same programmes and disclosures. For businesses that rely heavily on such workers, this can create a significant gap between reported performance and the reality of the workforce. The expectation, therefore, is shifting from simply counting programmes to measuring the people they actually reach and the difference they make. A credible wellbeing metric should provide a clearer picture of who received support, who used it, what outcomes followed and whether support continued when required or not. Without such evidence, workplace mental-health reporting risks becomes another list of ESG activities rather than a meaningful measure of how a company is supporting its people. Wellbeing Beyond the PayrollThe corporate conversation around mental health often focuses on employees who are easiest to reach: permanent, office-based staff with access to HR teams, digital platforms and private healthcare. But India's workforce is much more diverse, and workers facing the toughest conditions may have the least access to mental-health support. For blue-collar workers, long hours, physically demanding jobs, safety concerns and limited flexibility can add to everyday pressures. Yet counselling and employee-assistance programmes may not be as accessible to them as they are to office employees. Shift workers may struggle to attend sessions during regular hours, while language barriers, limited awareness and concerns about confidentiality can discourage them from seeking support. The challenge can be even greater for contract and gig workers. Their relationship with a company often runs through contractors, vendors or digital platforms, creating uncertainty about who is responsible for providing mental-health support. As a result, a company may report strong employee-wellbeing figures while a significant part of its workforce remains outside formal support systems. This raises an important ESG question: Who is included when companies measure employee wellbeing? A narrow reporting boundary can make a company's social performance appear stronger than the experience of its wider workforce. For businesses that depend heavily on contract or outsourced labour, credible reporting should clearly state whether these workers are included, excluded or covered through separate arrangements. There is also a barrier that participation figures cannot fully capture: stigma. Employees may avoid counselling because they fear being judged, labelled as unable to cope or treated differently by managers and colleagues. Simply providing a helpline or counselling service, therefore, does not guarantee that employees will feel comfortable using it. Closing this gap requires more than an annual wellness campaign. Support must be accessible, confidential and trusted, and it needs to reach workers across different locations, shifts and employment arrangements. This is where the difference between wellness programming and a genuine wellbeing strategy becomes important. A wellness week may create awareness for a few days, but a meaningful ESG approach asks a deeper question: can workers access support when they actually need it, and is the company also addressing the workplace conditions that contributes to stress in the first place? Absolutely. I’d make this one tighter, more analytical and mass-friendly, while keeping the ESG and impact-measurement angle clear. I’d also avoid making it sound like a conclusion. When Wellness Becomes a Box-Ticking Exercise As workplace wellbeing gains importance in corporate ESG discussions, a new concern is emerging: are companies improving employee wellbeing, or simply adding mental-health initiatives to their ESG checklist?  A wellness week, meditation session or counselling app may show that a company is taking action, but it does not necessarily prove that employees are benefiting. This is where the difference between activity and outcome becomes important. An activity-based approach records what a company has done, while an outcome-based approach looks at what has changed as a result. For investors and other stakeholders, the second measure offers a much clearer picture of social performance. A more meaningful assessment could therefore consider indicators such as participation, programme completion, repeat use of support services, absenteeism trends, employee feedback and continuity of care. None of these measures can establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship on their own, but together they can show whether wellbeing initiatives are reaching the people they are intended to support. Investment also needs closer attention. If a company spends significantly on employee wellbeing, stakeholders should be able to understand how spending relates to the number of workers covered and the support provided. Budget allocation does not necessarily mean the money was spent, and spending alone does not demonstrate impact. Stronger reporting would connect financial investment with measurable reach and longer-term outcomes. Privacy is another critical concern. Mental-health information is highly sensitive, and employees may avoid seeking help if they fear that their participation could become known to managers or affect their careers. Companies therefore need clear rules on confidentiality, data collection, storage and access to employee information. This makes governance an important part of the “S” in ESG. A wellbeing programme cannot be considered effective simply because it exists. Employees must also feel safe, respected and confident enough to use the support available to them. The wider ecosystem is also expanding beyond corporate HR teams. NIMHANS-affiliated workplace-health initiatives, mental-health organisations such as the Live Love Laugh Foundation and worker-health institutions such as ESIC are part of a broader push towards improving access to mental-health support. Their relevance to ESG, however, should be assessed through measurable reach, outcomes and continuity rather than the visibility of individual programmes. Large employers such as Infosys, TCS, Wipro, ITC, Tata Steel and JSW Steel, along with major banks and other listed companies, offer useful examples of how workplace wellbeing is being incorporated into employee policies and sustainability reporting.  However, the real comparison should not be based on who has the most visible wellness programme. It should focus on who provides wider access, protects employee privacy, measures outcomes and maintains support over time. From Wellness Activity to ESG Outcome What companies reportWhat investors should askEAP availableHow many employees actually used it?Wellness sessions conductedWhat changed afterwards?Employees coveredWho is excluded from the denominator?Counselling accessIs it confidential and accessible?Programme spendingWhat was the cost per beneficiary/outcome?Annual campaignDid support continue beyond the campaign? The credibility of workplace wellbeing reporting depends on moving beyond programme availability to measurable and sustained outcomes. What Would Make Workplace Wellbeing Credible to Investors?If mental health is becoming an important part of the “S” in ESG, companies will need to show more than the existence of a counselling service or employee-assistance programme. Investors want to know who is covered, whether employees can actually access and use the support, and what evidence shows that it is making a difference. The first requirement is clear coverage. Companies should state how many workers are included in their wellbeing programmes and whether this covers only permanent employees or also contract, outsourced and gig workers. Reporting both total figures and workforce-adjusted measures can provide a clearer picture of the programme’s actual reach. Without a defined reporting boundary, percentages can create a misleading impression of scale. The second is accessibility. A programme may be officially available but difficult to use because of working hours, location, language, limited awareness or concerns about confidentiality. For blue-collar, shift and contract workers, removing these barriers can be just as important as offering the programme itself. Then comes evidence of outcomes. Companies do not need to reduce mental health to a single score, but they can track indicators such as programme use, completion, employee feedback, absenteeism and retention trends. These measures can help show whether support is reaching employees and whether workforce wellbeing is changing over time, without claiming that one programme alone caused a particular business outcome. Continuity is another important test. Mental-health support should not disappear once a wellness campaign ends or an annual budget cycle close. Credible wellbeing strategies require sustained access, regular evaluation and safe channels through which employees can share feedback. Investors and ESG-data providers can also influence this shift. Rather than rewarding companies simply for reporting that a wellbeing programme exists, they can place greater emphasis on coverage, accessibility, outcomes and transparency. The Wellbeing Measurement ChainAccess → Participation → Completion → Outcome → Continuity Credible workplace wellbeing reporting requires companies to move from simply offering support to demonstrating sustained outcomes. For companies, the message is straightforward: strong wellbeing performance is not about having the most visible wellness programme. It is about creating a workplace where employees can seek support without stigma, access it without unnecessary barriers and trust that their personal information will remain protected. The conversation is therefore moving from “We have a wellness programme” to “Here is the evidence that our workforce is better supported.” That distinction could determine whether workplace wellbeing remains another activity listed in an ESG report or becomes a meaningful indicator of how responsibly a company manages its people. Ultimately, the wellbeing section of an ESG report should measure more than the number of workshops or campaigns conducted. It should show who is covered, who receives support, what changes and whether that support lasts or not!   Evidence Check: What Should Investors Look For?  Coverage: What percentage of the total workforce is included? Utilisation: How many employees actually used the support? Outcome: What changed after the intervention? Worker mix: Are contract, blue-collar and gig workers included? Cost: How much was actually spent per beneficiary/outcome? Continuity: Did support continue beyond the campaign or funding period? Baseline: Is there a starting point against which improvement is measured? Reporting boundary: Does the data cover the whole workforce or only selected employees?      Primary sources  SEBI — BRSR Core & ESG disclosure frameworkThis is your most important source. SEBI’s BRSR Core specifically includes employee/worker wellbeing spending and says mental-health access can be part of the reported wellbeing measures. SEBI — BRSR Core framework SEBI — Updated BRSR formatUseful for your coverage/denominator argument because the framework asks companies to report employee wellbeing benefits separately for permanent and non-permanent employees. SEBI — Updated BRSR format SEBI — BRSR Core industry reporting standardsUse this when discussing how ESG disclosures are becoming more standardised and comparable. SEBI — Industry Standards on Reporting of BRSR Core Live Love Laugh Foundation — Corporate Mental Health & Well-being ProgrammeVery useful for your wellness vs measurable outcome argument. Its programme uses employee assessments, stigma-reduction measures and utilisation of existing EAPs rather than relying only on awareness events. Live Love Laugh — Corporate Mental Health & Well-being Programme Live Love Laugh Foundation — Corporate India roadmapUse its Transforming Mental Health in Corporate India: A Roadmap for Action as a sector-specific source for burnout, workplace stress and the argument that mental health should move beyond one-off initiatives. Live Love Laugh — Corporate India Roadmap NIMHANS — Centre for Well BeingGood primary institutional source for the availability of professional mental-health support and NIMHANS' broader role in mental-health services. NIMHANS Centre for Well Being NIMHANS — Institutional informationUseful for establishing NIMHANS' role in mental-health research, care, policy and national programmes. NIMHANS ...Read more

10 Aug 2026

Kolkata | August 7, 2026 As India strengthens its position in global supply chains, responsible sourcing has become just as important as sustainable production. While companies increasingly promote ESG commitments and ethical procurement, concerns over bonded labour, migrant-worker exploitation and weak rehabilitation continue to challenge the credibility of these claims. The real question is no longer whether businesses have policies- but whether those policies protect workers on the ground. Quick SummaryIndia's ambition to become a global manufacturing and sourcing hub is placing greater attention on labour rights across supply chains. International buyers, particularly in Europe, now expect companies to prove that products are made without forced or bonded labour, making human-rights due diligence a critical part of ESG reporting. While governments have intensified anti-bonded labour campaigns and many large companies have strengthened supplier monitoring, challenges remain in sectors such as brick kilns, quarrying, textiles and construction, where migrant workers often face debt, poor working conditions and limited access to legal protections. Experts argue that rescue operations alone are insufficient unless rehabilitation, fair wages and long-term livelihood support are ensured. As global regulations become stricter, India's competitiveness will increasingly depend not only on environmental sustainability but also on how effectively it safeguards the rights and dignity of workers throughout its supply chains. Can India Build Global Supply Chains Without Leaving Workers Behind? India's ESG journey is no longer judged only by carbon emissions, renewable energy targets or environmental commitments. Gradually, investors, regulators and consumers around the world are asking a more fundamental question: Who made the product, and under what conditions? As global supply chains become more transparent, labour rights have emerged as one of the strongest indicators of corporate sustainability. This shift comes at a critical moment for India. As the country strengthens its position as a global manufacturing hub through initiatives such as Make in India and the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, it is attracting companies looking to diversify their supply chains. But with this opportunity comes greater scrutiny. International buyers now expect more than quality products and competitive prices- they also want assurance that goods are produced without forced labour, child labour or exploitative working conditions. At the heart of this challenge is bonded labour, one of India's oldest and most persistent labour-rights issues. Although the practice was abolished under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, cases continue to emerge across several industries. Workers caught in cycles of debt, informal employment and labour contracting arrangements often remain trapped in exploitative conditions despite legal protections. The issue goes far beyond legal compliance. Labour rights have become a key part of ESG performance. A company may reduce emissions, invest in clean energy and publish detailed sustainability reports, but if exploitation exists anywhere within its supply chain, those achievements are seen as incomplete. For global investors and responsible businesses, environmental responsibility and human rights are now inseparable. This changing landscape is also reshaping corporate practices. Large listed companies, exporters and multinational buyers are strengthening supplier checks, conducting labour audits and integrating human-rights due diligence into their procurement processes. These measures are aimed not only at meeting international expectations but also at reducing the legal, financial and reputational risks associated with unethical supply chains. However, experts caution that stronger corporate policies alone will not eliminate the problem. A large share of India's workforce remains employed in the informal sector, where monitoring is limited and many workers have little awareness of their rights or access to effective grievance mechanisms. As India seeks to expand its role in global manufacturing and trade, ensuring that economic growth is matched by stronger labour protections has become one of the country's most pressing sustainability priorities.The Hidden Reality of Bonded Labour Despite stronger laws and growing corporate commitments, bonded labour continues to exist across parts of India. Rather than disappearing, it has become less visible, often hidden within informal employment, labour contracting systems and migrant-worker networks that receive limited oversight.Some of the highest risks of bonded labour continue to be reported in sectors such as brick kilns, stone quarries, textiles, construction and small manufacturing units. In many cases, workers are recruited through middlemen who offer advance payments or small loans. What begins as financial support can soon turn into a cycle of debt, leaving workers unable to leave their jobs until the amount is repaid- a practice widely recognised as debt bondage. Migrant workers are particularly at risk. Many travel long distances in search of work without formal contracts, proper documentation or access to social security. Language barriers, dependence on labour contractors and limited awareness of their legal rights often make it difficult for them to report exploitation or seek help. According to labour experts, these conditions can lead to unpaid wages, excessive working hours and restrictions on workers' freedom, especially in labour-intensive sectors. In response, government agencies have stepped up efforts to identify and rescue bonded labourers through district administrations and Bonded Labour Vigilance Committees. States such as Telangana have expanded inspections and rescue operations, while the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and organisations such as International Justice Mission India (IJM India) continue to support rescue, legal action and rehabilitation. However, experts stress that rescue is only the beginning of the process. The bigger challenge is helping survivors rebuild their lives. Under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers, rescued workers are entitled to financial assistance, skill development and livelihood support. However, implementation remains uneven across states. Delays in issuing Release Certificates, slow disbursal of rehabilitation funds and limited follow-up support often leave survivors vulnerable to returning to the same exploitative conditions. Organisations such as Aajeevika Bureau and SEWA Bharat have repeatedly pointed out that financial insecurity remains one of the biggest reasons many rescued workers return to informal employment. Without stable livelihoods, social protection and long-term support, breaking the cycle of bonded labour becomes extremely difficult. Businesses, too, are facing growing pressure to strengthen labour oversight throughout their supply chains. Companies are now expected to look beyond their immediate suppliers by scrutinising labour contractors, monitoring subcontractors and ensuring that temporary and migrant workers receive the same protections and rights as permanent employees.For many organisations, protecting labour rights is no longer just about regulatory compliance, it has become a key part of responsible business practices and long-term ESG performance. Where Labour-Risk Vulnerabilities Are Highest  Brick kilns Quarrying Textiles Construction Small Manufacturing When Human Rights Become a Trade Requirement The discussion around bonded labour is no longer confined to human rights- it has become a business priority. As global markets place greater emphasis on responsible sourcing, Indian companies are finding that labour practices now influence market access, investor confidence and brand reputation as much as product quality or pricing.A major reason for this shift is the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and other emerging international regulations. These require companies to identify, prevent and address human-rights risks across their supply chains. Global buyers are no longer satisfied with just supplier declarations. They expect evidence that workers are recruited fairly, paid properly and employed under safe and ethical conditions, particularly in sectors that have historically been linked to labour exploitation. In response, many Indian exporters and large listed companies are strengthening their human-rights due diligence processes. Supplier agreements are gradually incorporating labour-rights clauses, mandatory compliance requirements and independent audits. Businesses are also looking beyond their direct suppliers to examine labour contractors and subcontractors, where informal employment practices are often more difficult to monitor. Many companies in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, logistics and platform-based services are investing in digital worker registration, attendance systems and grievance mechanisms to improve transparency. Others are working with independent auditors and civil society organisations to assess labour conditions instead of relying solely on internal reports. These efforts are aimed not only at meeting international regulations but also at reducing legal, operational and reputational risks in an ESG-focused business environment. However, experts caution that due diligence should go beyond paperwork. Audits conducted in the presence of management, pre-announced inspections or supplier self-declarations often fail to reflect the actual conditions faced by workers. Labour-rights organisations argue that meaningful due diligence requires confidential worker interviews, regular field visits and independent grievance mechanisms that allow workers to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. The situation is particularly challenging for migrant workers employed through third-party contractors. While many companies have adopted strong ESG policies, they often have limited visibility into the working conditions of people employed beyond their direct workforce. Bridging this gap between corporate commitments and on-ground realities remains one of the biggest challenges in building truly responsible supply chains. As India strengthens its position as a global manufacturing hub, businesses are realising that long-term competitiveness will depend not only on production capacity and product quality but also on their ability to uphold human rights throughout the supply chain. For global buyers, a sustainable product begins with fair treatment of the worker long before it reaches the consumer. Progress Is Visible, But Challenges Persist Government agencies say India has made significant progress in tackling bonded labour over the past decade. Several states have stepped up rescue operations; labour inspections have become more focused and rehabilitation programmes continue to receive policy support. Authorities also point to stronger coordination between government departments, district-level vigilance committees and awareness campaigns as important steps towards identifying and protecting vulnerable workers. Businesses also highlight improvements in their labour practices. Many large listed companies now require suppliers to follow human-rights standards, conduct regular labour audits and provide grievance mechanisms for workers. ESG reporting has also broadened the focus from workplace safety to issues such as ethical recruitment, fair wages and responsible sourcing.For companies serving international markets, these measures have become essential for maintaining investor confidence and meeting global buyer expectations. However, organisations working closely with affected communities present a more cautious assessment. Groups such as Aajeevika Bureau, SEWA Bharat and International Justice Mission India (IJM India) argue that while rescue operations have improved, long-term rehabilitation remains a major challenge. Many rescued workers continue to face financial hardship, while delays in rehabilitation support, limited livelihood opportunities and difficulties in accessing government benefits often leave them vulnerable to exploitation again. Labour-rights organisations also point out that migrant workers frequently remain outside formal monitoring systems, making it difficult to identify abuse until it becomes severe. Experts also caution that corporate compliance reports do not always reflect the realities of the entire supply chain. Most audits focus on direct suppliers, while smaller subcontractors and labour contractors- where the risk of exploitation is often highest receive much less attention. Without independent worker interviews, confidential grievance mechanisms and regular field verification, important labour issues can remain hidden despite positive ESG disclosures. For this reason, many experts believe that the next stage of India's ESG journey should focus less on expanding policies and more on measuring real outcomes. The true test of progress is not the number of audits conducted or policies announced, but whether workers receive fair wages, safe working conditions, access to benefits and effective protection when their rights are violated.   Closing this gap between policy and implementation will be crucial if India has to build supply chains that meet both national labour standards and rising global expectations. From Compliance to Competitiveness Worker Rights → Responsible Supply Chains → Stronger ESG → Investor Confidence → Export Competitiveness   Why Protecting Workers Is Good for Business Labour rights are no longer seen as just a legal requirement. They have become an important measure of how companies are judged by investors, regulators and global buyers. Today, a strong ESG profile is not defined only by lower emissions or renewable energy investments- it is also shaped by how businesses treat the people working across their supply chains. This shift is changing the way companies operate. Investors are paying greater attention to labour-related risks, while international buyers expect businesses to prove that their products are made under fair and ethical working conditions. Companies that cannot demonstrate responsible recruitment, safe workplaces and effective grievance mechanisms risk damaging their reputation, losing investor confidence and facing challenges in global markets. At the same time, organisations that invest in better labour practices are discovering clear business benefits. Fair wages, transparent supply chains and safe working conditions can improve employee morale, reduce operational disruptions and build stronger relationships with customers and investors. Protecting workers is no longer just about meeting regulations- but becoming a competitive advantage. For India, this shift carries particular significance. As the country strengthen its position as a global manufacturing hub, the credibility of its supply chains will depend not only on production capacity but also on the confidence that goods are produced under fair and lawful conditions. Sustainable economic growth cannot be achieved without protecting the people who drives it. Ultimately, India's ESG journey will be judged not only by how successfully it cuts emissions or expands clean industries, but also by how effectively it safeguards the rights and dignity of its workforce. Ending bonded labour requires much more than rescue operations or compliance reports.   It demands fair wages, timely rehabilitation, secure livelihoods and supply chains where every worker is visible, protected and treated with dignity. As global markets continue to demand greater transparency, businesses that place human rights at the centre of their ESG strategies will be better positioned to earn trust, attract investment and compete internationally. In the end, India's success as a global manufacturing and sourcing destination will depend not only on what it produces, but on how well it protects the people who produce it.    Sources:  Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India – Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, labour welfare schemes and rehabilitation policies.https://labour.gov.in/ National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) – Reports and advisories on bonded labour, migrant workers and human-rights protection.https://nhrc.nic.in/ International Justice Mission (IJM) India – Bonded labour rescue, rehabilitation and survivor case studies.https://www.ijm.org/india Aajeevika Bureau – Research and policy work on migrant labour, safe migration and labour rights.https://www.aajeevika.org/ SEWA Bharat – Informal workers, women's livelihoods and labour rights.https://www.sewabharat.org/ J-PAL South Asia – Evidence-based research on labour markets, migration and public policy.https://www.povertyactionlab.org/south-asia Telangana Labour Department – State-level bonded labour rescue initiatives, inspections and rehabilitation measures.https://labour.telangana.gov.in/ Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) (for broader ethical business and consumer accountability where relevant)https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/ ESIC (Employees' State Insurance Corporation) – Worker welfare, social security and benefit access.https://www.esic.gov.in/  International Labour Organization (ILO) – Global standards on forced labour, decent work and supply-chain due diligence.https://www.ilo.org/                   ...Read more

05 Aug 2026

Kolkata | August 5, 2026 Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming how companies measure, monitor and report the impact of their CSR initiatives. From predicting school dropout risks to automating sustainability disclosures, AI promises faster insights and greater accountability. Yet as algorithms begin shaping corporate giving, questions over data quality, ethical safeguards and reporting credibility are becoming impossible to ignore. Quick SummaryCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is entering a new phase where artificial intelligence is reshaping how social impact is measured. Companies are increasingly moving beyond annual spreadsheets and manual surveys towards real-time dashboards, predictive analytics and automated reporting systems capable of tracking beneficiaries, identifying programme risks and simplifying Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) disclosures. While these technologies promise greater efficiency and evidence-based decision-making, they also raise concerns around algorithmic bias, privacy, data manipulation and the growing gap between digital dashboards and realities on the ground. As regulators encourage greater transparency and companies invest in AI-powered impact platforms, the debate is shifting from whether AI should be used in CSR to how it can be deployed responsibly without compromising trust or accountability. Can artificial intelligence transform corporate giving into measurable social impact- or is technology moving faster than accountability? Not long ago, assessing the success of a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) project was a slow and largely manual process. Field teams travelled to project locations with paper surveys, NGOs maintained handwritten records, and corporate CSR departments often spent weeks compiling data before presenting annual impact reports. By the time the data reached the decision-makers, it was too late to make timely course corrections. That approach is changing rapidly. Today, a CSR manager overseeing a digital education initiative can monitor student attendance through live dashboards, receive alerts when learning outcomes begin to decline and identify schools at risk of higher dropout rates in real time. Healthcare programmes can track patient follow-ups digitally, livelihood projects can monitor income trends through mobile applications, and sustainability teams can use automated systems to support Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) disclosures. This transformation reflects a broader shift in corporate India. As companies face growing expectations to demonstrate measurable social and environmental impact rather than simply report CSR spending, artificial intelligence is emerging as an important decision-support tool. Instead of relying solely on end-of-project evaluations, organisations are beginning to use AI, predictive analytics and cloud-based platforms to monitor programmes as they unfold, enabling faster and more informed interventions. The potential benefits are significant.AI can analyse large volumes of beneficiary data within seconds, identify trends that might be overlooked through manual analysis and help organisations allocate resources more efficiently. Supporters argue that this allows CSR programmes to move beyond reactive problem-solving towards proactive decision-making, addressing challenges before they affect project outcomes. Yet the growing reliance on AI also raises an important question: Can technology fully measure social impact? Community development is influenced by trust, behaviour, local realities and human relationships-factors that cannot always be captured through algorithms or dashboards. A decline in school attendance may be visible in digital data, but technology alone cannot explain whether the cause is seasonal migration, financial hardship or inadequate school infrastructure. Similarly, a healthcare platform may accurately record beneficiary numbers while failing to reflect barriers such as accessibility, awareness or social stigma. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into corporate philanthropy, the challenge is no longer collecting larger volumes of data. But to ensure that technology strengthens accountability without creating a false sense of precision. In the end, better dashboards do not automatically lead to better decisions, and measuring social impact will continue to depend as much on human judgement as on artificial intelligence. From Reporting Projects to Predicting Outcomes The evolution of CSR reporting reflects a broader shift in corporate sustainability -  from documenting activities to demonstrating measurable impact. For years, the success of CSR initiatives was largely measured through inputs such as funds spent, beneficiaries reached and projects completed during a financial year. While these indicators met statutory reporting requirements, they revealed little about whether programmes had created lasting social or environmental value. Artificial intelligence is beginning to change that approach. Rather than being used only at the end of a project for reporting, AI is becoming part of programme implementation itself. Companies are adopting cloud-based dashboards, geospatial mapping, computer vision and machine learning to monitor projects in real time, enabling CSR teams to identify risks early, compare interventions and make timely course corrections before resources are exhausted. The impact is particularly visible in education. Instead of relying solely on annual assessments, AI-enabled systems can analyse attendance, classroom engagement, learning patterns and assessment results almost in real time. Predictive models can identify students showing early signs of disengagement, allowing implementing agencies to intervene before irregular attendance leads to permanent dropout. Similar applications are being explored in skill development programmes, where algorithms help identify trainees who may need additional mentoring or financial assistance based on participation and completion trends. Healthcare initiatives are undergoing a similar transformation. Community health workers use mobile applications to upload patient data directly from the field, while AI-assisted platforms monitor vaccination coverage, treatment adherence and disease patterns across regions. Rather than measuring success only through the number of health camps organised, organisations can now track follow-up visits, treatment outcomes and areas requiring additional intervention. Livelihood programmes are also benefiting from predictive analytics. Digital platforms monitoring self-help groups, farmer producer organisations and micro-enterprises can detect changes in income, productivity and market access, enabling implementing partners to respond before financial challenges undermine programme objectives. Instead of evaluating outcomes only after a project ends, AI is helping organisations identify emerging risks while corrective action is still possible. AI is also reshaping corporate sustainability reporting. The introduction of the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has significantly increased the volume of environmental, social and governance (ESG) data that listed companies are required to disclose. Collecting, verifying and consolidating this information across multiple business units has made manual reporting more time-consuming and complex. To address this, many organisations are adopting AI-powered reporting platforms that integrate data from operational systems, identify inconsistencies, flag missing disclosures and generate draft sustainability reports. Beyond reducing administrative effort, these systems improve reporting consistency and allow management teams to focus more on analysing performance than compiling documentation. Despite these advances, however, AI remains only as reliable as the data it receives. Artificial intelligence can identify patterns, generate insights and predict future trends, but it cannot compensate for incomplete records, inaccurate field reporting or weak verification processes. Poor-quality data inevitably leads to unreliable analysis, regardless of how advanced the technology may be. For this reason, many experts view AI not as a replacement for human oversight but as a tool that strengthens decision-making when supported by credible data, robust governance and effective monitoring systems. How AI Is Changing CSR Traditional CSR MonitoringAI-Driven CSR MonitoringAnnual surveysReal-time dashboardsManual beneficiary recordsAutomated data collectionEnd-of-project evaluationContinuous performance trackingReactive interventionsPredictive analyticsSpreadsheet reportingAutomated BRSR disclosures Key takeaway: AI is shifting CSR from measuring what happened to anticipating what could happen next.  When Algorithms Meet Accountability Artificial intelligence is transforming the way CSR programmes are monitored and evaluated, but it is also introducing a new set of ethical and operational challenges. As organisations rely on algorithms to guide decisions, an important question is emerging: Can technology strengthen accountability without compromising trust? At the heart of this debate, lies the quality of data.AI systems can only produce reliable insights when the underlying data is accurate, complete and consistent. Incomplete beneficiary records, duplicate entries or reporting errors can generate misleading conclusions that appear highly credible because they are supported by sophisticated dashboards and predictive models. Unlike manual reporting, where inconsistencies are often easier to identify, algorithm-driven analysis can sometimes conceal data quality issues behind polished visualisations. This concern is particularly relevant in CSR impact assessment. Many companies and CSR consultants now use AI-enabled platforms to consolidate data from education, healthcare, livelihood and environmental programmes. While automation has significantly improved reporting efficiency, experts caution that it should complement and not replace independent field verification. Without regular validation, inaccurate beneficiary records, duplicate entries or inconsistencies across projects can find their way into impact reports and sustainability disclosures. In many cases, these errors are not intentional. Different implementing partners often use varying reporting formats, beneficiary definitions and data collection methods. A beneficiary participating in multiple programmes may be counted more than once, while attendance, outreach and engagement may be measured using different indicators across projects. AI can process these datasets rapidly, but unless the information is standardised and verified, technology may reinforce inconsistencies rather than eliminate them. Privacy and data security have also become major considerations. AI-powered CSR platforms collect personal information such as age, location, income, educational performance and health records to improve programme design and delivery. Although this enables more targeted interventions, it also raises important questions about informed consent, data ownership and cybersecurity. Many beneficiaries, particularly in rural and digitally underserved communities, may have limited awareness of how their information is collected, stored or used. To address these concerns, experts are calling for stronger ethical safeguards around the use of AI. Greater transparency in algorithms, human oversight, robust data governance, protection of sensitive information and regular third-party audits are increasingly seen as essential for ensuring that AI strengthens accountability without creating new risks. There is also a growing recognition that not every aspect of social impact can be measured through technology. AI can efficiently analyse beneficiary numbers, attendance, training hours and financial disbursements while identifying patterns that may indicate emerging programme risks.  Affected VoicesDevelopment organisations working at the grassroots say artificial intelligence is making programme monitoring faster, but not necessarily simpler.NGOs involved in education, healthcare and livelihood projects argue that digital dashboards can highlight patterns, yet they cannot replace conversations with communities. A field worker may know why a child has stopped attending school, why a family refuses a healthcare intervention or why a self-help group is struggling despite positive financial indicators- insights that rarely appear in automated reports.Consumer and civil society organisations also caution that communities should not become passive data points. They argue that beneficiaries must understand how their information is collected, stored and used, particularly as AI systems become more integrated into social programmes. For them, responsible technology is not only about better analytics but also about protecting privacy, maintaining informed consent and ensuring that people remain at the centre of every CSR intervention. However, it remains far less effective at measuring outcomes such as community trust, behavioural change, social inclusion and local ownership- factors that often determine the long-term success of CSR initiatives. For this reason, development practitioners continue to emphasise the importance of human engagement alongside technological analysis.AI can identify that attendance in a vocational training programme is declining, but conversations with beneficiaries are often needed to understand whether transport costs, household responsibilities or seasonal employment are driving that trend. Technology can reveal patterns, but people provide the context that explains them. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in corporate philanthropy, the future of CSR impact measurement is likely to depend on balancing automation with accountability. Organisations that combine advanced analytics with transparent governance, independent verification and continuous engagement with communities will not only generate more reliable evidence but also strengthen public trust in the impact they seek to create. AI Can Measure, But Can It Understand?AI Measures Well Beneficiary numbers  Attendance and participation  Learning outcomes  Health follow-ups  Resource utilisation  Reporting efficiency  Humans Still Matter For Community trust Behavioural change Inclusion and dignity Local context Cultural realities Independent verification Key takeaway: Artificial intelligence can improve measurement- but meaningful impact still requires human judgment. When Evidence Meets ScrutinyAs artificial intelligence becomes an integral part of CSR monitoring, experts argue that the technology itself must be evaluated as rigorously as the programmes it measures. A sophisticated dashboard may present real-time insights and impressive visualisations, but its credibility ultimately depends on the quality of data, the methodology behind the analysis and the transparency of the reporting process. The first challenge lies in how impact is measured. CSR programmes often use different indicators to define success. An education initiative may focus on attendance or learning outcomes, while a healthcare project may measure beneficiary reach, treatment adherence or long-term health improvements. When AI systems analyse datasets built on different definitions and reporting standards, comparing outcomes across projects becomes difficult, even if the technology functions accurately. For this reason, development economists and impact evaluation specialists continue to emphasise the importance of establishing reliable baselines before introducing AI-driven monitoring. Without a clear starting point, it is difficult to determine whether a programme has genuinely improved people's lives or simply produced more data. An algorithm may report a significant increase in school attendance, but the finding has limited value unless it is measured against credible baseline data and tracked consistently over time. Another challenge is distinguishing the impact of a single intervention from broader social change. AI platforms can efficiently capture data generated within CSR programmes, but they cannot always account for external factors that influence outcomes. Improvements in school attendance, for example, may reflect not only a company's education initiative but also better government infrastructure, scholarship schemes or wider community participation. As a result, experts caution against treating AI-generated correlations as conclusive evidence of impact. Benchmarking presents similar limitations. Many AI platforms allow organisations to compare CSR performance across projects, districts or business units. However, such comparisons are meaningful only when programmes operate under similar conditions and pursue comparable objectives. Comparing projects with different beneficiary groups, geographies or impact indicators may produce conclusions that are statistically sound but practically misleading. This is why independent assurance remains essential. AI can quickly identify anomalies, missing records and unusual reporting patterns, but it cannot replace field verification, beneficiary feedback, external audits or independent programme evaluations. Experts argue that technology is most valuable when it strengthens existing evaluation processes rather than serving as a substitute for them. The growing investment in AI also raises important questions about transparency. Companies are allocating substantial resources towards digital CSR platforms, cloud infrastructure, analytics and cybersecurity. Yet annual reports rarely distinguish expenditure on AI-enabled monitoring from broader CSR administration or programme implementation. This makes it difficult for stakeholders to assess whether these investments are improving programme delivery or primarily enhancing reporting efficiency. Ultimately, the success of AI in CSR will not be measured by the volume of data it generates, but by the quality of the decision it supports. Technology can strengthen accountability and improve impact measurement, but only when it is backed by transparent methodologies, credible data, independent verification and meaningful human oversight. Evidence Check: Questions Every AI-Powered CSR Dashboard Should Answer   Evidence TestWhy It MattersIs the methodology publicly explained?Ensures transparency and comparability.What is the baseline?Measures real change, not isolated data points.Has the data been independently verified?Reduces reporting bias and inflation.Are reporting boundaries clearly defined?Prevents misleading impact claims.Does AI support or replace field verification?Human validation remains essential.Is investment in AI transparently disclosed?Demonstrates accountability beyond technology adoption. Key takeaway: Artificial intelligence can process information at extraordinary speed, but trustworthy CSR still depends on evidence that is transparent, independently verified and grounded in reality. Beyond the Dashboard Artificial intelligence is transforming the way companies design, monitor and evaluate their CSR initiatives. What was once driven by periodic surveys and retrospective reporting is evolving into a system supported by real-time data, predictive analytics and continuous monitoring. For businesses, this means faster decision-making and more informed resource allocation. For regulators and stakeholders, it offers the potential for greater transparency, consistency and accountability in sustainability reporting. However, technology alone cannot guarantee meaningful impact. The value of AI will ultimately depend on the quality of the data it processes, the transparency of the methodologies behind it and the governance system that ensures every insight is credible and independently verifiable. While dashboards can identify patterns and emerging risks, they cannot replace human judgement, community engagement or an understanding of the local realities that shape social outcomes. As AI becomes gradually embedded in corporate philanthropy, the conversation is shifting from whether it should be adopted to how responsibly it should be used. Its long-term success will not be measured by the sophistication of its algorithms, but by its ability to strengthen decision-making, build public trust and deliver measurable improvements where they matter the most. Ultimately, no algorithm, dashboard or report can define the success of CSR. Its true measure will always be the positive and lasting change it brings to people's lives. Evidence Check ParameterStatusMethodology disclosedPartial – Varies by platformIndependent verificationEssential but inconsistentBaseline comparisonRequired for credible impact measurementAI ethics & privacyIncreasing regulatory focusHuman field validationStill indispensableAI investment disclosureLimited in public CSR reports   Key TakeawaysAI is shifting CSR from annual reporting to real-time monitoring. Predictive analytics can identify programme risks before they escalate. BRSR reporting is accelerating AI adoption across listed companies. AI cannot replace field verification or community engagement. Transparency and independent audits remain essential for credible impact reporting. Primary Sources:  Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) – Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Framework & Companies Act, 2013https://www.mca.gov.in/ Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) – Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) Frameworkhttps://www.sebi.gov.in/ NITI Aayog – Responsible AI for All: Strategy and Discussion Papershttps://www.niti.gov.in/ Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) – IndiaAI Mission & AI Governance Initiativeshttps://www.meity.gov.in/ CSRBOX – CSR Intelligence, Case Studies & Impact Measurement Resourceshttps://csrbox.org/ Microsoft AI for Good – AI Applications for Social Impact and Sustainable Developmenthttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-good World Economic Forum (WEF) – Artificial Intelligence Governance & Responsible AI Reportshttps://www.weforum.org/ J-PAL South Asia – Evidence-Based Programme Evaluation and Impact Measurementhttps://www.povertyactionlab.org/south-asia ...Read more

04 Aug 2026

CSR • ESG MAGAZINE FEATURE  |  INDIA  |  AUGUST 2026  by Prof Ujjwal K Chowdhury India's oldest philanthropy tradition is getting a modern accounting. Across temples, mosques, gurdwaras and community trusts, the ancient imperatives of Daan, Zakat, Seva and Dasvandh are being rewired for an age of Theory of Change documents, third-party audits and Schedule VII compliance. This is the story of how sacred duty and spreadsheet discipline are converging to build India's most under-leveraged social infrastructure — and what it will take to get the merger right. SHORT SUMMARYThis feature examines the collision between India's faith-based giving traditions and the formal Corporate Social Responsibility regime under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It traces how religious and community trusts — from Zakat Center India and the AMP Zakat Fund to the Akshaya Patra Foundation, the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and India's Waqf Boards — are professionalising governance, adopting outcome tracking and navigating FCRA, tax and ESG requirements to qualify as credible CSR implementing partners. It closes with a practical playbook for corporates and trusts seeking to build partnerships that honour spiritual intent while meeting the non-negotiable standard of arm's-length, auditable, non-discriminatory delivery. HASHTAGS#FaithBasedGiving #CSRIndia #Zakat #Daan #Seva #ESG #Philanthropy #ReligiousTrusts #FCRA #Section135 #ScheduleVII #SocialImpact #ViksitBharat #SacredCapital The Invisible Giant: India's Faith Economy Before CSR Long before Parliament wrote a rulebook for corporate giving, India had already perfected the art of giving. A steel plate placed before a hungry stranger. Grain offered at a shrine. A day spent washing utensils in a community kitchen. A fixed share of annual wealth set aside for the poor. Daan, rooted in Vedic and Jain thought, treats selfless giving as a purifying duty. Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, mandates that eligible Muslims redistribute 2.5 per cent of accumulated wealth every year to the poor, the indebted and the marginalised. Seva and Dasvandh, institutionalised by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, fuse physical service with the tithing of one-tenth of income, expressed daily through the Langar — a communal kitchen that erases caste and class at the threshold of the door. Annadanam, Utsarg and a dozen other regional practices round out a philanthropic vocabulary that predates the modern NGO by centuries. The scale of this giving remains largely invisible to formal statistics. Recent household-giving research estimates India's annual informal giving market at roughly ₹54,000 crore, with religious organisations the most frequently cited recipients. Set beside this is India's formal CSR economy — companies reported close to ₹34,900 crore in CSR spending in FY 2023-24 under the mandatory 2 per cent regime created by Section 135 of the Companies Act. The two pools are not directly comparable, but the message is unmistakable: India's compassion economy may rival, and in places exceed, its statutory CSR economy. The challenge has never been a shortage of generosity. It is the leakage between good intention and measurable public benefit. Why the Wall Existed — and Why It Is Coming Down For the first several years of India's CSR mandate, faith and formal philanthropy occupied separate worlds. Schedule VII of the Companies Act explicitly excludes activities "concerned with religion," and corporate legal teams treated that clause as a blanket prohibition on anything smelling of temple, mosque or gurdwara. The 2022 CSR Amendment Rules changed the geometry. Public charitable trusts and societies — provided they carry tax-exempt status under Section 10(23C) or hold valid 12A and 80G registrations, and register on the MCA portal via Form CSR-1 — became eligible implementing agencies. The door opened; through it walked India's oldest philanthropic tradition, blinking in the fluorescent light of modern compliance. "The gods may accept faith alone. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs does not." What changed was not the spirit of giving but its accountability. Traditional daan was measured by the act itself — the giving was the merit. Modern CSR demands evidence of change: how many children stayed in school, how many families escaped debt, what the social return on every rupee actually was. Faith-based institutions that wish to access this ₹30,000-crore-plus CSR pool must now speak in baselines, Key Performance Indicators and independent impact assessments — or risk watching the capital flow instead to secular NGOs that already do. Three Pillars of the New Faith-Based CSR Pillar One — Structured Governance Traditional giving ran on trust, literally: a donor gave to a temple or community leader and funds were distributed by need, religious calendar or community consensus. That model built deep social capital but little institutional architecture. Today's professionalised trusts are changing that by publishing annual impact reports, maintaining project-wise accounting, conducting internal FCRA reviews, and keeping trust deeds strictly aligned with actual activity — audit-ready documentation that can withstand a corporate CSR committee's scrutiny. Pillar Two — Outcome Tracking The defining shift is from output to outcome. It is no longer enough to state how much was distributed; the question is what changed. Structured Zakat platforms now report exact counts of students funded, self-employment grants disbursed and families supported with food assistance — specific, countable outcomes that can be tracked year over year, mapped directly onto the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and defended in an ESG disclosure. Pillar Three — Regulatory Compliance The most complex pillar is regulation itself. Religious and charitable trusts operate under a dense web of law: the Indian Trusts Act, the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920, Sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, and — for those receiving funds from abroad — the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. Tightened FCRA rules now require trusts to specify their purpose from a government-notified schedule, exclude proselytisation, and route foreign contributions through designated accounts. The stakes are real: license revocations, high-profile investigations into the political use of CSR funds, and courts clarifying the boundary between cultural and religious activity have all made compliance a survival imperative rather than a formality. Case Study: Zakat Platforms — Scaling Faith with Systems Structured Zakat platforms such as Zakat Center India and the AMP Zakat Fund illustrate how mandatory religious giving is being converted from a cash handout into what practitioners call an empowerment capital engine. Zakat Center India has built a verified-cause database spanning thousands of documented causes across education, medical assistance, livelihood support and disaster relief, allowing donors to choose recipients and locations while honouring the Islamic principle that Zakat must reach specific categories of beneficiaries. The AMP Zakat Fund's annual impact report goes further, breaking distribution down by category — education and scholarships, livelihoods and self-employment, orphan support and compassionate relief — with named outcome counts for students funded and entrepreneurs seeded, alongside cumulative multi-crore impact tracked since inception. For corporations seeking to partner with Muslim communities on CSR, these platforms offer a template: professionally managed, jurisprudentially sound, and legible to a corporate audit committee. Case Study: Akshaya Patra — The Bridge That Almost Collapsed No case illustrates the peril of faith-CSR convergence better than the Akshaya Patra Foundation. Born from an ISKCON Bangalore kitchen in 2000, it grew into the world's largest NGO-run mid-day meal programme, feeding millions of children across tens of thousands of schools, with major corporate CSR partners covering the overwhelming majority of relief costs. Then came the reckoning: internal audit findings, later reported widely in the press, alleged that the line between the charitable Foundation and its parent religious trust had blurred — kitchens built with CSR and government funds allegedly used for temple purposes, and donations meant for meals reportedly diverted toward religious construction. The lesson is not that faith-based organisations are unfit for CSR. It is that related-party transactions between a religious trust and its charitable arm are fatal. Where the arm's-length principle is violated, tax exemptions come under scrutiny and CSR funds become effectively contaminated. Akshaya Patra has since undergone governance restructuring, but the episode remains a mandatory case study for any CSR head evaluating a faith-rooted partner: compassion without accountability breeds corruption. Case Study: The Gurdwara Model — Faith as Healthcare Infrastructure If Akshaya Patra is the cautionary tale, the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is closer to the blueprint. Its kidney dialysis centre treats patients regardless of religion or income, and — critically — operates with enough financial transparency and programme documentation to qualify as a CSR implementing agency. A multinational chemical company has directed CSR funds to this dialysis service for three consecutive years, alongside partnerships with other established implementing agencies. The model works because the Gurudwara has built what amounts to a secular membrane around its healthcare delivery: the Langar remains sacred, but the dialysis unit maintains clinical records, follows medical protocols, and bills or waives patients through a transparent accounting system that satisfies corporate auditors. Case Study: TTD and the Waqf Opportunity The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams manages one of the world's richest religious institutions, receiving hundreds of crores in devotional offerings annually. Beneath the gold-plated domes sits a social-services architecture — free schools, subsidised hospitals, oncology and paediatric care, rehabilitation centres — that many state governments would envy. What TTD has not yet fully exploited is its potential as a CSR magnet: with independent trustees for its social wing and formal impact frameworks, the temple's existing infrastructure could channel far larger CSR sums into surrounding tribal belts, provided hundi receipts and CSR receipts never share the same voucher. India's Waqf Boards present a parallel, largely dormant opportunity. Controlling over six lakh properties, they are among the country's largest landowners, yet poor record-keeping and weak professional management have left much of this wealth spiritually blessed but economically idle. Corporate-waqf development models have already succeeded elsewhere in Asia, turning waqf land into hospitals, universities and microfinance institutions. In India, the Waqf mandate — education, healthcare, women's empowerment, skill development — aligns almost perfectly with Schedule VII. What is missing is the bridge: CSR-1 registration, trained professional trustees, and outcome frameworks that satisfy a corporate audit committee. The ESG Lens: Faith as Environmental, Social and Governance Capital As ESG disclosure becomes the currency of investor trust, faith-based programmes are proving relevant to all three pillars. On the Social side, education, healthcare, livelihood and relief work map directly onto goals such as No Poverty, Quality Education and Decent Work. On Governance, professionalised trusts with transparent accounting and board oversight demonstrate exactly the standards ESG investors demand. And on the Environmental side, a quieter revolution is underway: solar-powered ashrams and pilgrimage kitchens, circular-economy ventures that convert daily flower offerings into bio-fertiliser and incense rather than dumping them into rivers, and temple-led watershed restoration around ancient stepwells and tanks. Faith networks, it turns out, possess an asset money cannot buy — deep-seated social capital and moral authority that can unlock last-mile trust no corporate campaign can purchase outright. The Governance Gap: Why Arm's-Length Is Non-Negotiable The single biggest threat to faith-based CSR is not regulatory rejection — it is conflict of interest. A temple trustee who also controls the receiving charitable trust, a mosque committee that collects Zakat and CSR funds into the same account, a church NGO sharing undocumented premises with its seminary: none of these are minor technical lapses. They are existential risks that can unwind an entire partnership. The 2022 CSR Amendment Rules demand arm's-length relationships between implementing agencies and related parties, which in practice means separate legal entities for the charitable arm, independent professional board members alongside religious leadership, ring-fenced bank accounts with no cross-subsidisation of ritual activity, and documentation that translates faith language into development metrics — replacing "we feed the hungry because God commands it" with "we served fifty thousand meals and reduced absenteeism by twelve per cent." A Practical Playbook Before Anyone Signs an MoU Verify active 12A, 80G and CSR-1 registration, and review Form FC-4 returns where foreign funds are involved.Insist on a written Theory of Change with baseline data, clear KPIs and a multi-year project plan aligned to Schedule VII.Require ring-fenced, dedicated bank accounts that keep CSR capital entirely separate from ritual or unrestricted donations.Build in independent third-party impact verification and public, board-level annual reporting rather than one-off photo-op distributions.Diversify partnerships across faiths, regions and themes to avoid over-concentration and reputational risk.Invest in capacity building for trusts that have grassroots trust but not yet the technical muscle for rigorous reporting. These are not bureaucratic hurdles imposed on the sacred. They are the price of admission to formal capital — and, done well, they protect the very donors and beneficiaries the tradition was built to serve. The Road Ahead: Viksit Bharat Needs Both Mandir and Monitor India's ambition to become a developed nation by 2047 requires social-sector funding that government spending alone cannot supply, with the development funding gap estimated in the tens of lakh crores. Faith-based institutions bring three assets no corporate campaign can replicate at that scale: trust capital built over generations in villages where the state feels distant; fixed infrastructure — kitchens, halls, land — that does not need to be built, only upgraded; and volunteer networks of sevadars, Zakat collectors and congregation teachers who serve without a payroll. None of this is worth anything without an audit trail. The winning model is neither a cheque handed unconditionally to a shrine nor a CSR department dictating spirituality to a trust. It is a principled partnership in which faith supplies purpose, community supplies trust, professional management supplies execution, law supplies boundaries, and evidence supplies credibility. When Daan is tracked with data, when Zakat fuels scalable livelihoods, and when Seva powers audited healthcare and disaster response, philanthropy becomes more than charity. It becomes Sacred Capital — a force multiplying inclusive, transparent and lasting national growth.   ...Read more

04 Aug 2026

Why Disability Inclusion Must Become India Inc.’s Next Boardroom ESG KPI A ramp, a recruitment drive or an annual award cannot prove inclusion. The real test is whether employees with disabilities are hired, paid fairly, retained, promoted, protected during climate shocks, and able to secure benefits and remedies without fighting the system. BY PROF. UJJWAL K. CHOWDHURY  |  MAGAZINE FEATURE  |  INDIA, AUGUST 2026 “Inclusion should not be viewed as charity.”— Rajesh Aggarwal, at the launch of the CII Award for Excellence in Disability Inclusion, December 20241Accessibility is no longer a feel-good CSR initiative. It is a test of governance maturity, workforce quality, digital competence, operational resilience and the integrity of ESG reporting.Short SummaryThis feature examines CII-style employer awards, physical and digital audits, the hiring-versus-retention gap, disability-inclusive climate resilience, and the implications of ESIC and India’s labour-code transition. Corporate cases are used to test disclosure quality—not to confer unqualified praise.Hashtags #DisabilityInclusion  #WorkplaceAccessibility  #ESG  #SocialSustainability  #InclusiveEmployment  #BRSR  #ClimateJustice  #BoardroomKPI  #IndiaIncEDITORIAL EVIDENCE NOTECorporate examples below rely on official releases and public sustainability disclosures. A missing metric is identified as a disclosure gap, not proof of poor performance. Disability headcounts often depend on voluntary self-disclosure and may understate actual prevalence. The evidence standard used throughout is outcomes over intentions.THE “S” IN ESG HAS A MISSING DENOMINATORIndia’s sustainability vocabulary is fluent in carbon intensity, water positivity, renewable energy and net-zero targets. It remains far less exact about who can enter a workplace, use its systems, build a career and leave with dignity. That imbalance is no longer defensible.SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting framework has created an important starting point. It asks listed companies to disclose employees and workers with disabilities, and it separately seeks information on turnover, wages, welfare benefits, accessibility and grievances. The weakness is that many outcome tables are not disability-disaggregated. A company can report a headcount while investors still cannot see whether those employees are underpaid, concentrated at junior levels, denied benefits or leaving faster than comparable colleagues.5Accessibility must therefore become a boardroom KPI: owned by the board or a designated committee, reviewed quarterly, linked to executive accountability and tested by independent evidence. The central question is not, “Do we have a disability policy?” It is, “At every stage of work, where are people being filtered out—and what did management do about it?”AWARDS CAN MOVE MARKETS—IF THEY REWARD PROOFThe Confederation of Indian Industry has worked on disability inclusion through employer sensitisation, recruitment support, workplace guidance and the India Business and Disability Network. Its Award for Excellence in Disability Inclusion, launched in December 2024, gives the market something it badly needs: a visible benchmark. The 2026 framework recognises accessibility, disability-inclusive culture, inclusive recruitment and overall “Champion Company” performance, with separate eligibility thresholds for large enterprises and MSMEs.12Awards matter because reputation affects talent, procurement and investor confidence. But they become ESG instruments only when they reward proof. A credible CII-style award should score workforce denominators; wage and promotion parity; one- and two-year retention; accommodation response times; audit closure; benefit access; disability-inclusive procurement; grievance remedies; emergency preparedness; and actual expenditure against approved budgets.CASE STUDYPersistent Systems: recognition backed by an audit trailPersistent Systems received the 2026 CII award in the “Best Employer—Physical Accessibility” category. Its public account points to independent audits, an accessibility benchmark at its Pune facility, alignment with India’s Harmonised Guidelines, digital platforms designed toward WCAG standards, and governance ownership.The next step for the awards ecosystem is tougher verification: random site visits, confidential interviews with disabled workers without managers present, public scoring bands and evidence that audit findings were closed—not merely identified. Recognition should open the evidence file, not replace it.10 AUDIT THE EMPLOYEE JOURNEY, NOT JUST THE ENTRANCEA workplace can have an accessible entrance and still be institutionally inaccessible. A physical audit must follow the full employee journey: transport and parking; security and reception; paths, doors and lifts; tactile and visual signage; workstations and factory floors; meeting rooms, canteens, washrooms and medical rooms; employee housing; and emergency exits.In industrial settings, the audit must test whether protective equipment, alarms, control panels, evacuation chairs and safety instructions work for people with mobility, visual, hearing, cognitive and neurodivergent needs. Maintenance matters as much as design: a compliant ramp blocked by motorcycles is not accessible.The digital audit begins before employment. It must test the careers page, application form, applicant-tracking system, online assessment, interview platform and document-upload process. After joining, it should cover HRMS, attendance, payroll, leave, insurance, learning, collaboration, travel booking, procurement, appraisal and grievance portals. Automated scanners can flag technical defects, but they cannot substitute for usability testing by people with varied disabilities.For the financial sector, this is now regulatory territory. SEBI’s 2025 circular suite made digital accessibility mandatory for regulated entities, placed review responsibility with the managing director, managing partner or proprietor, required a senior nodal officer, and called for accessible grievance channels and baseline ICT standards. Banks, brokers, exchanges, mutual funds and fintech firms should treat accessibility as an employee right, a customer right and a governance risk at the same time.34CASE STUDYInfosys: a number that opens the questionInfosys reported 1,075 employees with voluntarily disclosed disabilities in FY2025–26. Against a total headcount of 328,594, that is about 0.33 per cent. The company also reports accessibility learning, an InfyAbility employee network with more than 3,900 members, accessibility living labs and accommodation support.This is useful disclosure because it gives a denominator and acknowledges voluntary disclosure. It also reveals the next frontier: applicant-to-hire conversion, probation completion, 12- and 24-month retention, pay parity by comparable grade, promotions, high-value assignments, accommodation requests, and remedies after disability-related grievances. Overall attrition cannot answer whether disabled employees are leaving at a higher rate.67 CASE STUDYTata Steel: inclusion on the industrial floorTata Steel’s FY2025–26 consolidated BRSR reported 149 employees with disabilities out of 73,215 employees—about 0.20 per cent—and separately identified 118 permanent workers with disabilities. Only nine of the 149 employees were women. The company clearly stated that European subsidiaries were excluded because those operations do not collect the data under local privacy practices.That boundary note is exemplary: it prevents a partial figure from masquerading as universal coverage. Tata Steel also describes modifications to workstations and washrooms, tailored laptops and assistive software or hardware, temporary accommodation during onboarding and workplace buddies. The unanswered ESG questions concern disability-specific wages, retention, injuries, promotion, grievance remedies and representation in production, engineering, logistics, maintenance and supervisory roles.8 HIRING MAKES HEADLINES; RETENTION PROVES INCLUSIONRecruitment drives are visible and countable. Retention is quieter—and more revealing. A serious dashboard tracks the complete funnel: applications → accessible assessment → interview → offer → acceptance → joining → probation completion → 12-month retention → 24-month retention → promotion → internal mobility. Each stage should be segmented by disability category, gender, location, employment status, occupational group and grade, with privacy safeguards and minimum reporting thresholds.The most common barriers often appear after onboarding: inaccessible internal software, delayed reasonable accommodation, transport problems, shift allocation, exclusion from travel or client-facing work, weak mentorship, biased appraisal and an absence of career pathways. Disability inclusion fails through everyday management decisions long before it appears in a legal complaint.TCS offers useful architecture. Its ENABLE Disability and Allies Network, launched in 2017, creates an employee forum, while PACT brings parents, allies and caregivers into the inclusion ecosystem. TCS also publicly emphasises accessible recruitment, workplace design, assistive technology and reasonable accommodation. Wipro, ITC, JSW Steel and major banks should be evaluated against the same outcome test: not whether policies exist, but whether disabled employees remain, advance and receive comparable rewards.9THE INCLUSION INFRASTRUCTURE: FROM MITTI CAFÉ TO V-SHESHInclusive employment is not merely a placement transaction. Mitti Café’s model combines experiential training, café and catering jobs, customer interaction, visibility and dignity. It reports more than 50 cafés in institutional and public spaces and thousands of persons with disabilities skilled, while its support model includes health insurance, food and accommodation. The transferable corporate lesson is that retention may require transport, accessible housing, coaching, nutrition, family engagement or health support—not only an appointment letter.11V-Shesh represents another part of the infrastructure. It says it supports 117 leading companies through recruitment, pre- and post-hiring services, sensitisation, policy advice, accessibility services and work trials, and reports more than 2,000 jobs facilitated. Such intermediaries help employers redesign roles instead of rejecting candidates against inherited job descriptions.12National Restaurant Association of India chapters and hospitality groups could scale common accessible-recruitment protocols, model kitchens and hotels, shared trainers, accessible customer-service standards and cross-company apprenticeships. Yet every partnership must publish conversion and retention: how many people were trained, how many received paid jobs, what they earned, how many remained, which benefits they accessed and what happened when difficulties arose.THE OVERLOOKED “E”: CLIMATE RESILIENCE THAT DOES NOT ABANDON PEOPLEA heatwave, flood, cyclone, power failure or transport shutdown does not affect every worker equally. Employees using wheelchairs, hearing aids, powered mobility equipment, ventilators, screen readers, medication refrigeration or caregiver support face risks that conventional business-continuity plans often fail to see.The evidence is alarming. UNDRR’s global survey found that only a small minority of local disaster-risk-reduction plans addressed the specific needs of persons with disabilities, while most respondents reported no participation in community-level decision-making. In India, CEEW’s 2025 heat-risk assessment found 57 per cent of districts—home to 76 per cent of the population—at high to very high heat risk. CEEW’s framework explicitly treats disability and chronic conditions as vulnerability factors. WRI India’s work on industrial transition similarly warns that green transitions do not automatically deliver inclusion without structural change.131415A disability-inclusive corporate resilience plan needs multimodal warnings using sound, text, vibration, visual signals and plain language; accessible evacuation maps, exits, drills and refuge areas; evacuation chairs and trained responders; backup electricity for assistive and medical devices; accessible shelters, transport and temporary accommodation; heat-adjusted shifts and rest periods; remote-work options during severe weather; continuity of medication and caregiver access; and equal protection for contract and outsourced workers.Disabled employees must co-design and test these systems. CSE, WRI India, CEEW and Climate Policy Initiative India can widen corporate climate-risk methodologies; IiAS, InGovern and independent academics can test board ownership, disclosure integrity and incentives. The principle is unforgiving: a climate plan that cannot protect the most exposed employee is not a resilient plan.LABOUR CODES AND ESIC: COVERAGE MUST BECOME VISIBLEIndia’s four labour codes took effect on 21 November 2025, reshaping workforce classification, social-security administration, contractor governance and reporting systems. For disability inclusion, classification is material because people can disappear between the principal employer’s payroll, staffing firms, contractors, apprenticeships, fixed-term work and platform arrangements.16Boards should receive disability-disaggregated data for permanent and fixed-term employees, permanent and contract workers, apprentices, temporary and outsourced personnel, and gig or platform workers where relevant. A consolidated headcount that excludes the most precarious categories can make inclusion look stronger than it is.ESIC is an essential protection but should not be confused with an inclusion policy. Its permanent-disablement benefit can provide lifelong payments linked to loss of earning capacity after an employment injury; permanent total disablement is generally paid at 90 per cent of average daily wages. That protection does not replace accessible recruitment, reasonable accommodation, career progression or freedom from discrimination.17The ESG test is practical: among eligible workers, how many are registered for ESIC, PF and insurance; how many claims were filed and accepted; how long settlement took; whether contractors deposited contributions; whether assistance was available in accessible formats; and what remedy followed a denial. “Covered as per law” is not evidence of access.THE BOARDROOM ACCESSIBILITY SCORECARDA credible dashboard should contain eight linked measures. It should reach the board at least quarterly; material failures should enter the annual report; and remuneration committees should consider whether senior executives delivered agreed outcomes.#KPIEVIDENCE THE BOARD SHOULD SEE1REPRESENTATIONAbsolute number and percentage of persons with disabilities; voluntary-disclosure rate; segmentation by gender, grade, site, employment status and occupational category.2EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMESApplication-to-interview and interview-to-hire conversion; probation completion; 12- and 24-month retention; promotion; internal mobility; disability-specific exit reasons.3PAY & BENEFITSMedian fixed and variable remuneration against comparable work; insurance, ESIC, PF, leave, transport, assistive devices and caregiver provisions.4ACCOMMODATIONRequests received, approved, rejected and pending; median closure time; spend; employee satisfaction; independent appeal route.5PHYSICAL & DIGITAL ACCESSPercentage of sites and critical systems independently audited; barriers by severity; closure and re-test rates; overdue actions.6VOICE, GRIEVANCE & REMEDYConfidential worker interviews without management present; complaints by issue; substantiation; corrective action; compensation; non-retaliation; recurrence.7CLIMATE & EMERGENCY RESILIENCEAccessible warnings and drills; evacuation readiness; backup power; heat and severe-weather protocols; remote-work continuity; contractor coverage.8MONEY, BOUNDARIES & ASSURANCEApproved accessibility capex and opex; money actually spent; baseline year; reporting boundary; methodology; absolute and intensity results; independent assurance scope.REGULATORS, BANKS, AUDITORS: THE ACCOUNTABILITY CHAINSEBI, MCA, RBI, the Ministry of Finance and the stock exchanges can drive convergence through stronger disability-disaggregated indicators, accessible filing and investor platforms, financial-sector enforcement, public-sector-bank leadership and credible assurance standards. The BRSR architecture should evolve from “how many?” to “what happened to them?”Audit firms and ESG-data providers must stop treating a policy, a ramp or a “yes” response as sufficient evidence. Assurance should reconcile payroll, HR, grievance, procurement, facility, IT and benefits data; test a sample of sites and systems; interview workers without management; and verify both approved budgets and money actually spent. Absolute results must be shown alongside intensity measures, because a better percentage can hide a shrinking denominator.Infosys, TCS, Wipro, ITC, Tata Steel, JSW Steel and large banks have the scale to establish sector benchmarks. CII-style awards can accelerate competition. Mitti Café, V-Shesh, organisations of persons with disabilities and disability-led experts can supply implementation intelligence. But persons with disabilities must remain the primary witnesses, auditors, designers and decision-makers—not beneficiaries photographed for annual reports.ACCESSIBILITY IS ENTERPRISE QUALITYThe next phase of disability inclusion will not be won by compassionate language. It will be won by better systems: recruitment that does not reject assistive technology; software that works with a screen reader; managers who deliver accommodations on time; factories that evacuate every worker; benefits that can actually be claimed; and grievance mechanisms that produce remedy without retaliation.A truly accessible company is easier to enter, safer to work in, simpler to transact with and more resilient under stress. It identifies process defects that inconvenience everyone, protects scarce talent, strengthens customer access and exposes governance blind spots before they become litigation, reputational damage or operational failure.Accessibility is not a CSR footnote. It is a balance-sheet issue, a resilience issue and evidence of management quality. The ramp now leads to the boardroom—and the board should be accountable for whether it reaches the door.SELECTED EVIDENCE BASE1. Confederation of Indian Industry: Launch of CII Award for Excellence in Disability Inclusion, 18 December 2024. 2. CII India Business and Disability Network: Award for Excellence in Disability Inclusion—2026 categories and eligibility. 3. Securities and Exchange Board of India: Mandatory compliance by all regulated entities under the RPwD Act, circular dated 31 July 2025. 4. SEBI: Compliance Guidelines for Digital Accessibility, circular dated 25 September 2025. 5. SEBI: Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by listed entities, circular dated 10 May 2021. 6. Infosys: ESG Report 2025–26: social inclusivity, accessibility and voluntary disability disclosure. 7. Infosys: Three-year IFRS data sheet, including FY2025–26 employee headcount. 8. Tata Steel: Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report 2025–26. 9. Tata Consultancy Services: DEI framework, ENABLE and PACT; disability hiring and accessibility guidance. 10. Persistent Systems: CII Award for Excellence in Disability Inclusion—official release. 11. Mitti Café: Employment, training and inclusive café model. 12. V-Shesh: Workforce and workplace inclusion services. 13. UNDRR: Global Survey Report on Persons with Disabilities and Disasters, 2023. 14. CEEW: District-level heat-risk assessment for India, May 2025. 15. WRI India: Challenges and barriers to a fair and equitable transition in India’s SME sector, April 2026. 16. Ministry of Labour & Employment: Year End Review 2025: four labour codes effective from 21 November 2025. 17. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation: ESI Scheme benefits and Permanent Disablement Benefit.   ...Read more

01 Aug 2026

India's growing vehicle scrappage ecosystem is transforming end-of-life vehicles into valuable resources, but the success of a circular material economy will depend on formal recycling, stronger infrastructure and public participation  Kolkata | August 1, 2026:Every vehicle eventually reaches the end of its useful life. The real question is what happens next. For years, old and damaged vehicles in India were largely dismantled in informal scrapyards, where valuable materials were recovered with little environmental oversight or scientific waste management.  Today, that approach is gradually giving way to a more organised system. As India expands its vehicle scrappage programme and establishes authorised recycling facilities, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) are beginning to play a much larger role in the country's transition towards a circular economy. The shift comes at an important moment. India is one of the world's largest automobile markets, and millions of vehicles are expected to retire from the roads over the next decade. Managing this growing volume is no longer just about disposing of ageing vehicles. It is becoming an opportunity to recover valuable resources, reduce industrial waste and strengthen sustainable manufacturing. Under the government's Vehicle Scrappage Policy, ageing and unfit vehicles are encouraged and in certain cases required- to undergo fitness assessments before being transferred to Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities (RVSFs). These authorised centres are designed to dismantle vehicles scientifically, safely handle hazardous components and recover reusable materials such as steel, aluminium, copper, plastics, and rubber. Experts believe this approach could significantly improve India's resource efficiency. Recovering metals from scrapped vehicles requires far less energy than extracting and processing newly mined raw materials, helping reduce both production costs and carbon emissions.Recycled steel and aluminium are also expected to become increasingly valuable as demand continues to grow across the automotive, construction and infrastructure sectors.Yet building an efficient circular material chain remains a complex task. A substantial portion of vehicle dismantling is still carried out by the informal sector, which has supported recycling activities for decades through well-established local networks. While these businesses recover a significant amount of recyclable material, environmental safeguards, worker safety standards and material traceability often remain inadequate. Integrating informal operators into a regulated recycling ecosystem is therefore seen as one of the biggest challenges facing the sector. Infrastructure presents another hurdle. Expanding the number of authorised scrapping facilities is only part of the solution. Experts say the wider ecosystem-including testing centres, dismantling capacity and supporting infrastructure- still falls short in many parts of the country.The transition also faces another obstacle: participation. Public awareness of the scrappage policy remains limited, while logistical constraints and uneven implementation across states continue to slow the growth of formal recycling systems. Experts believe that without meaningful economic incentives, encouraging wider participation from vehicle owners will remain a significant challenge. Vehicle owners are more likely to participate when scrapping offers tangible financial benefits through tax concessions, incentives or discounts on new vehicle purchases. At the same time, manufacturers stand to benefit from a more dependable supply of recycled materials, strengthening supply-chain resilience while reducing dependence on newly extracted resources. The advantages extend well beyond the automobile industry. A well-developed vehicle recycling ecosystem can reduce landfill waste, improve air quality by replacing highly polluting vehicles and create new employment opportunities across dismantling, material recovery, recycling, and secondary manufacturing. It also supports India's wider objectives of improving resource efficiency, lowering industrial emissions and promoting circular economy practices within domestic manufacturing. Environmental experts believe that transition cannot end with vehicle recycling alone.A truly circular automotive sector will require vehicles to be designed for easier recycling, valuable materials to be recovered more efficiently, battery recycling systems to expand and manufacturers to take greater responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products. As India's vehicle population continues to grow, the country's next sustainability milestone may not be measured by how many new vehicles are manufactured, but by how responsibly older ones are managed at the end of their life. The programme's success will not be measured by the number of vehicles it dismantles, but by the value it creates from them. It will be measured by how effectively yesterday's vehicles are transformed into tomorrow's resources, reducing waste, conserving raw materials and strengthening India's circular economy. The journey of a vehicle should not end at the scrapyard. In a truly sustainable economy, it should continue through the materials it leaves behind - fueling new industries, conserving natural resources and reinforcing the idea that the most valuable resources are often those already in our hands. Sources: Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) – Vehicle Scrapping Policy: Notifications and Ruleshttps://www.morth.gov.in/en/Circulars-Notifications-related-to-Vehicle-Scrapping-PolicyPress Information Bureau (PIB) – Vehicle Scrapping Policy: Progress of Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities (RVSFs)https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2099130&lang=2&reg=48National Government Services Portal – Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facility (RVSF) Portalhttps://services.india.gov.in/service/detail/apply-for-registered-vehicle-scrapping-facilityMinistry of Road Transport and Highways – State-wise Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facility (RVSF) Notificationshttps://www.morth.gov.in/en/rvsf-notificationsCentral Pollution Control Board (CPCB) – Environmentally Sound Management of End-of-Life Vehicleshttps://cpcb.nic.in/NITI Aayog – Reports on Circular Economy and Resource Efficiencyhttps://www.niti.gov.in/Down To Earth – Coverage on vehicle scrappage, recycling and the circular economy in Indiahttps://www.downtoearth.org.in/The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) – Research on resource efficiency, recycling and circular economyhttps://www.teriin.org/Ministry of Steel, Government of India – Steel recycling and secondary raw materials initiativeshttps://steel.gov.in/Press Information Bureau (PIB) – Voluntary Vehicle Fleet Modernization Programme (Vehicle Scrapping Policy)https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?lang=2&reg=48&relid=265928 ...Read more

01 Aug 2026

As India pushes sustainable aviation fuel to cut aviation emissions, questions over feedstocks, costs and competition for land and food are beginning to shape the debateKolkata| August 1, 2026: The future of aviation may depend not only on how aircraft are designed, but also on what powers them.Today, aviation contributes around 2–3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and unlike road transport, long-distance flights still have limited alternatives to conventional liquid fuels. As governments and airlines look for ways to reduce emissions without disrupting air travel, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) has emerged as one of the sector's most promising solutions. For India, adopting Sustainable Aviation Fuel is not simply a question of replacing one fuel with another. It requires balancing climate ambitions with economic viability, feedstock availability and long-term sustainability. SAF is produced from renewable or waste-based feedstocks instead of conventional crude oil. Depending on the production pathway, it can substantially reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions while remaining compatible with existing aircraft engines and airport infrastructure. Its compatibility with existing aircraft engines and airport infrastructure makes SAF one of the most practical and scalable solutions for reducing aviation emissions. India is gradually bringing Sustainable Aviation Fuel into the centre of its clean energy and climate strategy.Government agencies, airlines, oil marketing companies and research institutions are working to expand domestic production, support pilot projects and prepare for future blending mandates.Beyond reducing aviation emissions, these efforts are intended to strengthen energy security and help India secure a place in the emerging global SAF market. The real challenge, however, extends beyond policy ambition. It lies in ensuring a sustainable and reliable supply of feedstock that can support production on a commercial scale. Experts point to agricultural residues, used cooking oil, municipal solid waste, forestry waste and certain non-food energy crops as the most promising sources for Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Unlike food-based feedstocks, these resources can help reduce emissions without affecting food security. The challenge, however, lies in building efficient supply chains, as collecting, transporting and processing these materials remains expensive and operationally complex. The conversation becomes far more complex when cleaner fuel begins to compete with food and land resources. Using edible oils, sugar crops or fertile agricultural land as feedstocks could place additional strain on food prices, water availability and rural livelihoods. Environmental experts also warn that clearing forests or natural ecosystems to cultivate energy crops may erode many of the climate gains that Sustainable Aviation Fuel seeks to achieve. As a result, the real challenge is not simply producing cleaner aviation fuel- it is ensuring that the path to cleaner aviation does not create new environmental or social pressures along the way.  Cost remains one of the biggest hurdles for Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Production volumes are still limited, supply chains are yet to mature and, as a result, SAF continues to cost significantly more than conventional jet fuel. For airlines already operating in a highly competitive market with narrow profit margins, absorbing these additional costs will not be easy without targeted policy support and market incentives. That is why the design of future blending mandates could determine how quickly SAF moves from ambition to widespread adoption. Rather than imposing immediate large-scale adoption, many countries are introducing phased blending mandates that gradually expand the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel while supporting domestic production and maintaining industry competitiveness. Experts argue that India will need a similar approach—one that balances climate commitments with commercial realities and gives producers, refiners and airlines the certainty and time needed to expand investments, production capacity and supporting infrastructure.Despite these challenges, experts emphasise that Sustainable Aviation Fuel is only one part of the solution. Reducing aviation emissions will also depend on more fuel-efficient aircraft, improved air traffic management, operational efficiencies and the development of future technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft. The future of aviation decarbonisation won’t rest on SAF alone. It will sit alongside efficiency, new aircraft, and operational changes. For India, Sustainable Aviation Fuel represents more than an alternative fuel- it offers an opportunity to reshape the future of cleaner aviation. A successful SAF ecosystem could create economic value from agricultural waste, strengthen energy security, encourage innovation and help the country move closer to its climate commitments. But lasting success will depend on ensuring that the transition protects food security, safeguards ecosystems and supports the communities that depend on them. The future of aviation will not be judged only by how much it reduces emissions, but by how responsibly it achieves that transition. Because sustainable flight truly begins long before it’s take-off - with fuel that is as sustainable in its production as it is in its purpose. Sources: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – SAF Feedstocks (CORSIA Framework)https://www.icao.int/CORSIA/feedstocksInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – Guidance on Policy Measures for SAF Development and Deploymenthttps://www.icao.int/SAF/saf-guidance-policy-measuresInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – SAF Rules of Thumb (Feedstocks, Costs & Production Pathways)https://www.icao.int/SAF/saf-rules-of-thumbICAO ACT-SAF Programme – India Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Studyhttps://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/environmental-protection/Documents/ACT-SAF/Feasibility_Study_India.pdfInternational Air Transport Association (IATA) – Global Feedstock Assessment for SAF Production Outlook to 2050https://www.iata.org/globalassets/iata/publications/sustainability/global-feedstock-assessment-for-saf-production-outlook-to-2050.pdfMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (Government of India) – Biofuels and Sustainable Aviation Fuel policy updateshttps://mopng.gov.in/Ministry of Civil Aviation (Government of India) – Aviation sustainability initiatives and SAF developmentshttps://www.civilaviation.gov.in/NITI Aayog – Reports on biofuels, energy transition and low-carbon transporthttps://www.niti.gov.in/International Energy Agency (IEA) – Aviation and Sustainable Fuelshttps://www.iea.org/Down To Earth – Coverage on SAF, biofuels, feedstock availability and food-versus-fuel concerns in Indiahttps://www.downtoearth.org.in/ ...Read more

01 Aug 2026

As pumped storage gains momentum across India, debates over land, ecology, financing and cleaner alternatives are growing alongside it KOLKATA | August 1, 2026: India's renewable energy capacity is expanding rapidly, but the next phase of the transition will depend on solving a critical challenge: storing clean electricity when renewable sources are not generating power. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) has emerged as one of the country's most promising solutions and is now playing a central role in India's energy planning. However, as projects begin moving from policy announcements to on-ground development, they are also raising important questions about land, ecology, financial viability and whether alternative storage technologies can deliver the same benefits with fewer trade-offs. Pumped storage hydropower functions like a giant rechargeable battery. Surplus electricity is used to pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper one, where it is stored until demand rises. When additional power is required, the water is released back through turbines to generate electricity. Its ability to provide long-duration energy storage and stabilise the electricity grid has made pumped storage an important part of India's strategy for integrating larger amounts of solar and wind power. Pumped storage hydropower is emerging as a cornerstone of the Union government's long-term clean energy strategy. Across states such as Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Karnataka, a growing pipeline of projects is expected to play a vital role in integrating larger volumes of solar and wind power into the grid. Yet as development gathers pace, the conversation is expanding beyond energy storage to include questions of land, ecology, financial viability and sustainability. While pumped storage offers important benefits for the power sector, many proposed projects are located in ecologically sensitive hilly and forested areas. Developing two reservoirs often requires significant land acquisition and extensive civil works. Experts caution that large-scale construction, forest diversion and changes to natural drainage systems could have lasting impacts on biodiversity, wildlife movement and local ecosystems. In many regions, residents have also expressed concerns about displacement, water availability and the long-term effects on their livelihoods. Financial sustainability is another issue shaping the debate. The financial challenge begins long before a pumped storage project starts generating electricity. While these facilities can operate for decades with relatively low operating costs, they demand substantial upfront investment and long construction timelines. Delays in environmental clearances, land acquisition or financing can sharply increase costs and affect overall project viability. Developers also need reliable revenue mechanisms that recognise the value of energy storage and grid-balancing services, rather than compensating only for electricity generation. These constraints have led to a broader discussion on whether alternative storage technologies could offer faster or more flexible solutions.Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are emerging as a promising alternative, with declining costs and faster deployment making them well suited for a wide range of energy storage applications.Yet experts believe each technology serves a different purpose. While batteries perform well for short-duration storage, pumped storage hydropower remains better suited for storing large amounts of electricity over longer periods. Other solutions, including green hydrogen and advanced battery technologies, are also making steady progress, but they are still some ways from delivering the scale and reliability needed to support India's national electricity grid. Experts argue that pumped storage and batteries should be viewed as complementary rather than competing technologies. As renewable energy expands, India's electricity system is expected to require a combination of storage solutions capable of meeting different grid requirements. At the same time, policymakers face a broader challenge. Future projects will need rigorous environmental assessments, transparent engagement with local communities, fair compensation frameworks and stronger ecological safeguards to support both sustainable development and investor confidence. As India's renewable energy capacity continues to grow, pumped storage hydropower is expected to play a defining role in keeping the power system reliable. But its legacy will not be determined by storage capacity alone. It will be defined by whether development can balance environmental responsibility, financial sustainability and public trust alongside the country's growing energy needs.In the years ahead, the clean energy transition will be judged not only by how much renewable electricity India generates, but by how responsibly it chooses to store it. Sources: Ministry of Power, Government of India – Pumped Storage Projects Guidelines & Policy Initiativeshttps://powermin.gov.in/ Central Electricity Authority (CEA) – National Electricity Plan (Volume II: Transmission & Energy Storage)https://cea.nic.in/ NITI Aayog – Energy Storage Roadmap for Indiahttps://www.niti.gov.in/ International Energy Agency (IEA) – Electricity Storage & Hydropower Analysishttps://www.iea.org/ International Hydropower Association (IHA) – Pumped Storage Hydropowerhttps://www.hydropower.org/ Central Electricity Authority (CEA) – Status of Pumped Storage Projects in Indiahttps://cea.nic.in/hydro/ Down To Earth – Reports on pumped storage projects, environmental clearances and ecological concerns in India.https://www.downtoearth.org.in/ Mongabay India – Coverage of pumped storage projects, biodiversity impacts and community concerns.https://india.mongabay.com/ The Hindu BusinessLine – Coverage on pumped storage investments, project financing and renewable integration.https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) – Environmental clearance notifications and project approvals.https://moefcc.gov.in/ ...Read more

31 Jul 2026

From overseas investments to recycling and responsible mining, India's critical minerals strategy is entering a decisive phase Kolkata | July 30, 2026:Every electric vehicle, solar panel, wind turbine and battery storage system relies on a set of resources that often remain out of public view- critical minerals.    Lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite and rare earth elements, have become indispensable to the global clean energy transition, making them strategically important today as fossil fuels were in the past. As countries accelerate efforts to decarbonise their economies, India is also strengthening its approach in securing these resources. Through overseas partnerships, investments in mineral-rich regions, domestic refining, recycling initiatives and policy reforms, the country is working to build a more resilient critical mineral supply chain. The objectives extend beyond supporting renewable energy projects. It is also about strengthening energy security, expanding domestic manufacturing and reducing dependence on imports. The urgency has grown as global competition for critical minerals continues to intensify. Much of the world's refining and processing capacity remains concentrated in a few countries, leaving supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, trade restrictions and market disruptions.In response, India is focusing on a two-pronged approach-strengthening international cooperation to secure mineral supplies while building domestic refining capacity to convert raw minerals into battery-grade materials at home.Experts say this reflects an important shift in the global conversation. Securing access to mineral deposits is no longer enough. Gradually, countries are seeking greater control over the entire value chain - from extraction and refining to manufacturing, recycling and reusing. Recycling is emerging as another key part of this transition. As electric vehicle adoption grows, used batteries and electronic waste are expected to become valuable secondary sources of lithium, cobalt and nickel. Recovering these materials can reduce pressure on fresh mining, lower environmental impacts and strengthen resource security while creating new opportunities in advanced recycling and material recovery. Although recycling alone cannot meet future demand, experts believe it will play an important role in building a more circular economy.Securing critical minerals is necessary, but far from sufficient. Mining often takes place in ecologically sensitive regions that support forests, rivers and Indigenous communities. Around the world, concerns over biodiversity loss, land acquisition, water stress and community displacement have intensified alongside expanding mineral exploration. Conservationists argue that the transition to clean energy should not come at the expense of environmental protection or local livelihoods. This has elevated responsible mining to a core priority.Experts believe every critical mineral project should include transparent environmental assessments, meaningful community consultation, fair compensation and continuous ecological monitoring. They stress on a fundamental shift: local communities must be partners in building the future, not just recipients of its consequences. The discussion reflects a broader evolution in the sustainability agenda. Climate action is no longer measured only by the number of renewable energy projects or electric vehicles on the road. It also depends on whether the resources powering these technologies are extracted responsibly, processed efficiently and managed sustainably throughout their life cycle.For India, the years ahead will determine whether industrial growth, resource security and environmental responsibility can advance together. Progress will depend not only on overseas agreements or new processing facilities, but on building a supply chain that is transparent, resilient and socially inclusive. Ultimately, the clean energy transition will be defined not just by what we build, but by how we build it. It will also be judged by the choices made long before those technologies reach consumers.   The countries that lead the future will not simply be those with the largest mineral reserves, but those that develop supply chains that are ethical, resilient and circular. For India, the real challenge is not only securing the minerals that power a greener economy, but proving that sustainable development begins with responsible decisions at every stage of the journey! The true success of the clean energy transition lies not only in its destination, but in ensuring that every step along the way is sustainable. Sources: Ministry of Mines, Government of India – National Critical Mineral Mission, policy updates and official announcements.Ministry of Mines – Critical MineralsCouncil on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) – Analysis on the India–US Critical Minerals Agreement, domestic processing and supply-chain resilience.India–US Critical Minerals: The Midstream Test (CEEW) Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) – Quad Critical Minerals Initiative Framework and international cooperation.Quad Critical Minerals Initiative FrameworkInternational Energy Agency (IEA) – Critical Minerals Policy Tracker covering global supply chains, recycling and responsible mineral policies.IEA Critical Minerals Policy TrackerReuters – Reporting on India's expanding critical mineral partnerships and efforts to strengthen exploration, processing and recycling.India in talks over critical minerals partnerships ...Read more

30 Jul 2026

As NCRBC 2026 approaches, the conversation is shifting from sustainability reporting to building businesses that are resilient, responsible and future-ready What if the real value of sustainability is no longer measured by the report a company publishes once a year, but by the decisions it makes every day?From managing risks and attracting investment to building customer trust and securing long-term growth, sustainability is increasingly becoming part of how businesses operate.That transformation is expected to drive discussions at the National Conference on Responsible Business Conduct (NCRBC) 2026, organised by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) on 15–16 July, followed by the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) Masterclass on 17 July.The conference comes at a time when businesses across India are under growing pressure to demonstrate that sustainability is more than a corporate commitment. Gradually, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices are moving beyond annual disclosures and becoming a core element of business strategy. Why ESG Matters Beyond BusinessESG may sound like a term reserved for corporate boardrooms, but its impact reaches far beyond them. It shapes the products people buy, the conditions in which employees work and the way businesses affect the environment and local communities. Cleaner production, ethical sourcing, responsible waste management and transparent governance, influence everyday life. Public expectations are changing as well. Consumers and investors want businesses to prove that sustainability is reflected in their actions, not just their reports. In a marketplace built on trust, companies that fail to do so risk falling behind. Why Reporting Alone Is No Longer Enough For many businesses, sustainability reporting was once viewed as a way to meet regulatory requirements. Today, it is becoming a starting point rather than the final objective. India's Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework has strengthened ESG disclosures, but stakeholders now expect more than transparency. Investors compare ESG performance before allocating capital, banks are incorporating sustainability risks into lending decisions, global buyers are demanding responsible sourcing, and customers are rewarding businesses that demonstrate genuine environmental and social responsibility. The result is a fundamental shift: ESG is moving from an annual reporting exercise to an integral part of business strategy, financial planning and long-term growth. What Will NCRBC 2026 Focus On? The conference is expected to bring together policymakers, corporate leaders, regulators, researchers, sustainability professionals and industry experts to discuss the future of responsible business in India. The discussions are expected to cover several key areas, including Integrating ESG into core business strategy.Strengthening Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) and its implementation.Building resilient and responsible supply chains.Advancing climate action, corporate governance and ethical leadership.Preparing businesses to adapt to evolving global sustainability standards.The Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) Masterclass, scheduled for 17 July, is also expected to help organisations strengthen their sustainability reporting while encouraging companies to use ESG information as a business planning tool rather than treating it solely as a compliance requirement. The Bigger ChallengePublishing a sustainability report may mark an important milestone, but it does not guarantee meaningful change. The real challenge lies in translating commitments into everyday business practices. Many organisations continue to struggle with collecting reliable ESG data, measuring environmental impacts, engaging suppliers and embedding sustainability across their operations. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often face additional barriers because of limited financial resources, technical expertise and dedicated sustainability teams. Experts say that achieving broader ESG adoption will require stronger policy support, capacity-building initiatives and practical guidance, particularly for smaller businesses. They also believe that continuous monitoring will become increasingly important. Businesses will need to demonstrate measurable improvements in emissions reduction, resource efficiency, employee well-being and governance practices- not just publish sustainability reports each year. Looking AheadAs India strengthens its sustainability ambitions and keeps pace with evolving global responsible business standards, platforms like NCRBC are becoming more than places for discussion. They are helping shape a future where sustainability is no longer viewed as a corporate obligation, but as a driver of innovation, resilience and long-term growth. The true success of ESG will not be measured by the number of reports released each year. It will be measured by businesses that reduce their environmental impact, strengthen governance, build resilient supply chains and earn the trust of the communities they serve. Because the future of responsible business will not be defined by what companies say in their disclosures- it will be defined by what they change in their decisions, their operations and their culture. That is the transformation ESG is ultimately expected to deliver. Sources:Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) – NCRBC 2026 (https://iica.nic.in/esgconference/)   NCRBC 2026 Official Conference Website (https://esgconference.iica.in/)   Press Information Bureau (PIB) – NCRBC 2026 Inaugural Press Release (https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2285687&lang=2&reg=48)  Press Information Bureau (PIB) – NCRBC 2026 Closing Press Release (https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2286148&lang=2&reg=48)   Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) – Certified ESG Professional Programme (https://iica.nic.in/esgcsr/)   Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) – Sustainability Reporting Standards Board (https://www.icai.org/post/sustainability-reporting-standards-board) ...Read more

30 Jul 2026

CAQM's latest inspections in Noida and Greater Noida reveal why road dust remains one of the region's biggest air pollution challenges  In Noida and Greater Noida, dust is no longer just a sign of construction- it has become part of the city's daily rhythm. It settles on vehicles, homes and streets, only to rise again as traffic moves and construction continues. For millions of residents, breathing through this haze has become an ordinary part of everyday life. For many residents, dust has become part of the daily routine. But should it also become the price of development? Fresh inspections by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) across Noida and Greater Noida suggest the answer is far from settled. Although improvements are visible in some areas, the review found that persistent gaps continue to limit the effectiveness of road dust control measures. Why Is Road Dust Under the Spotlight?Road dust is one of the most persistent sources of air pollution in Delhi-NCR. Damaged roads, construction activity, uncovered debris and constant traffic repeatedly lift fine particles into the air, adding to harmful PM10 and PM2.5 pollution.Unlike smoke from factories or exhaust from vehicles, road dust often goes unnoticed. Yet it continues to circulate with every passing vehicle.CAQM's latest inspections were intended to examine whether road-owning agencies are following dust-control norms and whether ongoing infrastructure projects are helping improve air quality instead of making it worse. A Step Forward, But the Problem Persists The inspections suggest that while progress is visible, the work is far from complete. Fully paved roads have reduced dust in some locations, but exposed shoulders, unfinished infrastructure and poorly maintained road surfaces continue to allow fine particles to spread.CAQM has asked the responsible agencies to finish pending work and treat road maintenance as a continuous responsibility rather than a one-time intervention.The message is clear: despite ongoing clean-air initiatives, road dust remains one of Delhi-NCR's most stubborn sources of pollution. The Cost of Dust Goes Beyond Dirty Roads Road dust is easy to overlook, but its impact reaches far beyond what settles on vehicles or buildings.The fine particles it releases can enter the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. For children, older adults and people who work outdoors- including delivery workers, traffic police personnel, sanitation workers and street vendors- this exposure is a daily reality.When dust is left unmanaged, its effects extend beyond the roadside, reducing air quality in nearby homes, schools, parks and neighbourhoods. In that sense, controlling road dust is not only about cleaner cities- it is about protecting public health. The Real Test Comes After the Inspection Dust-control measures are not new. Mechanised sweeping, water sprinkling, paved shoulders and stricter construction norms have all been promoted as part of Delhi-NCR's clean-air efforts. Yet residents continue to encounter the same dusty roads. The question is no longer what needs to be done, but whether it is being done consistently or not. Lasting improvements will depend not just on inspections or announcements, but on effective implementation, regular monitoring and accountability long after the inspections are over. What Comes Next? Experts believe lasting improvements will come only when road dust control becomes an everyday responsibility rather than an occasional clean-air campaign. Completing road paving, expanding mechanised sweeping, regularly treating dust-prone stretches and managing construction waste more effectively can all help reduce pollution. Just as importantly, damaged roads should be repaired before they turn into permanent sources of airborne dust. Transparency is equally important Making inspection reports, action-taken reports and follow-up assessments publicly accessible would help residents understand what progress is being made while strengthening accountability among local authorities.Experts also recommend expanding green buffers along major roads, improving roadside landscaping and ensuring that construction sites consistently comply with dust-control regulations.Residents have a role to play as well. Reporting damaged roads, excessive construction dust and uncovered debris can help authorities identify pollution hotspots early and take corrective action before conditions worsen. Cleaner Roads, Healthier Cities CAQM's latest inspections serve as a reminder that cleaner air is not shaped only by what comes out of exhaust pipes or factory chimneys- it is also influenced by the condition of the roads beneath our feet.Road dust remains one of the most preventable sources of urban air pollution. With consistent maintenance, effective enforcement and long-term planning, cleaner roads can become an important step towards healthier cities. The Real Measure of Progress The challenge is no longer identifying the sources of road dust. It is ensuring that every recommendation is followed by action, every agency is held accountable and every improvement is sustained.Because the true measure of a city's progress is not just how fast it grows- but how clean and healthy it remains for the people who call it home. Here are 5 credible open-source references that align with your blog and support the information on CAQM inspections, road dust, enforcement, and air quality management. Sources:Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) – Official Orders, Directions & Inspection Updateshttps://caqm.nic.inMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) – Air Pollution Control Policies & Environmental Regulationshttps://moef.gov.inNational Clean Air Programme (NCAP) – Government of Indiahttps://ncap.niua.orgPress Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India – Official releases on CAQM, air quality and dust mitigation initiativeshttps://pib.gov.in Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) – Air Quality Data, PM2.5/PM10 Information & Dust Pollution Guidelineshttps://cpcb.nic.in ...Read more