Social & Labour

09 Sep 2026

India’s rural schools are not empty because families have stopped valuing education. They are losing relevance because the system has struggled to deliver learning, capable teachers, functional infrastructure and pathways to a changing world. As India looks towards 2030, rebuilding the rural government school must become a priority—not simply by adding infrastructure, but by restoring capability, dignity and trust. SummaryIndia’s rural government schools face a deeper crisis than declining enrolment: many are struggling to deliver foundational learning, adequate infrastructure, teacher availability and meaningful pathways for children. Despite near-universal enrolment among rural children, learning outcomes remain uneven, while teacher vacancies, single-teacher schools and infrastructure gaps continue to weaken the public-school experience. The challenge is not simply whether schools should remain open, but whether they can become relevant to the aspirations and realities of rural families. The article examines policy efforts under NEP 2020, NIPUN Bharat and the 2030 education agenda, alongside examples of communities and states rebuilding public-school capacity. It argues for stronger teachers, mastery-based learning, digital and AI literacy, nutrition, functional infrastructure, local skills and transparent community participation. By 2030, the real measure of success should be the capabilities and opportunities a rural school gives every child—not merely the number of schools or students on paper. KeywordsRural Education, Rural Schools, Government Schools, Education Reform, Rural India, NEP 2020, Foundational Learning, School Education, Teacher Shortage, Education 2030, Public Education, Education Equity, Digital Literacy, Community Participation, School Infrastructure Why rural India's government schools are losing relevance - and how to rebuild them by 2030 NEP 2020 promises children who can read, reason, create, code and choose a livelihood. In too many villages, the State still struggles to provide the teacher, toilet, meal and lesson needed to get there. The rural school is not redundant. Its delivery model is. The central question in rural Indian education is no longer whether children are enrolled. It is whether the school gives them enough power to read with understanding, handle numbers, communicate across languages, use digital tools safely, question an automated answer and imagine work beyond inherited occupations. Across large parts of the country, government schools remain present in official registers but absent from the future children are being prepared to enter.This is not a claim that every public school is failing, or that private schools are automatically better. Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and many individual schools elsewhere show that public education can be rigorous, humane and trusted. Nor is a merger always wrong: a school with five children, one exhausted teacher and no laboratory may need a stronger nearby hub. The harder point is that the average rural public-school design has drifted away from both family aspirations and India's own stated education policy. A school may become empty because families lost faith, and families may lose faith because the school became empty. That is a policy loop, not a verdict on the child.  Access has widened. Learning has not caught up. India has made a significant access achievement. ASER 2024 found that 98.1 per cent of rural children aged 6-14 were enrolled. Families have not rejected education; they have brought children to the school gate. The crisis begins after the gate. In 2024, only 23.4 per cent of Grade III children in government schools could read a Grade II-level text. By Grade V, the figure was 44.8 per cent in government schools, compared with 59.3 per cent in private schools. Only 27.6 per cent of Grade III government-school children could do a subtraction problem; just 30.7 per cent of all Grade V children could solve basic division, rising to 45.8 per cent in Grade VIII.The adolescent picture is more damaging. ASER's 2023 Beyond Basics survey of rural youth aged 14-18 found that only 43.3 per cent could correctly solve a three-digit-by-one-digit division problem. About one in four could not fluently read a Grade II-level text in the regional language. Only 57.3 per cent could read simple English sentences and, among those, 73.5 per cent could explain their meaning. Digital access is also being mistaken for digital capability: 82.2 per cent of 14-16-year-olds knew how to use a smartphone, but only 57 per cent had used one for education in the previous week, while 76 per cent had used one for social media. A young person may navigate a video feed and still be unable to verify a source, fill an online form, protect a password, read a spreadsheet or question an AI answer.The Karnataka evidence cited in the accompanying Counterview report is a warning even in a state associated with technology. Across a 30-district study, 32.7 per cent of Grade I children could not recognise letters, 39.8 per cent could not read words and only about 34 per cent of Grade V children could read at Grade II level. The report also points to roughly 43,000 teacher vacancies and more than 6,150 single-teacher schools. The problem is therefore not only the number of posts. A teacher who has not been prepared for early reading, level-based instruction, practical mathematics, multilingual pedagogy, digital safety or AI ethics cannot acquire those capacities merely because a new online module has been uploaded.  NEP 2020 is written in the future tense. The National Education Policy 2020 imagines a 5+3+3+4 structure, foundational literacy and numeracy, early learning in the home or local language, less rote learning, competency-based assessment, subject flexibility, arts and physical education, vocational exposure from the middle grades, digital learning, inclusion, school complexes and stronger teachers. It expects a learner who can think, communicate, collaborate, solve problems and continue learning. NIPUN Bharat turned the foundational promise into a national mission, with Grade III as the target for basic reading, writing and numeracy. That 2025 deadline has passed, while the learning gap remains.The distance between policy and classroom is not a philosophical disagreement. It is a supply-chain failure. NEP needs time, subject teachers, school leadership, libraries, laboratories, transport, technology, health support and a professional culture that protects teaching. Rural schools too often receive the curriculum as a PDF and reform as a compliance form. They are asked to teach English, mathematics, digital skills and now AI literacy without the staff, equipment and training needed to do so. NEP also refuses the old academic-vocational hierarchy: a rural child should be able to learn algebra and understand a water pump, English and food processing, science and the local craft economy. Too many schools currently provide neither strong foundations nor credible practical pathways.  NITI Aayog's mirror: a chain of small failures. NITI Aayog's May 2026 report, School Education System in India: Temporal Analysis and Policy Roadmap for Quality Enhancement, draws on UDISE+ data from 2014-15 to 2024-25, PARAKH 2024, National Achievement Survey evidence and ASER 2024. Its central value is that it does not reduce the crisis to one statistic. India now has about 14.71 lakh schools serving more than 24.69 crore students, and primary access is close to universal, but higher-secondary gross enrolment is only 58.4 per cent. Government schools' share of enrolment fell from 54.3 per cent to 49.25 per cent over the decade, while private unaided schools rose from 31.7 per cent to 38.8 per cent. The shift reflects demography, migration, consolidation, data cleaning and family choice, but it also signals a weakening public contract.More than one-third of schools have fewer than 50 students. NITI records 1,04,125 single-teacher schools serving 33,76,769 pupils. A national pupil-teacher ratio can therefore look comfortable while a remote teacher is handling several grades, records, meals and surveys. Secondary dropout stood at 11.5 per cent in 2024-25, driven by cost, distance, migration, early work, early marriage, weak foundations and the belief that more schooling will not change a family's income.Infrastructure has improved, but administrative availability is not daily functionality. Functional girls' toilets rose from 85.17 per cent in 2014-15 to a reported 94 per cent in 2024-25, yet 98,592 schools still lacked one; 61,540 had no usable toilet, 14,505 lacked functional drinking water and 59,829 lacked handwashing facilities. Electricity reached 91.9 per cent, but 1.19 lakh schools still lacked functional electricity. Computers were reported in 64.7 per cent of schools, internet in 63.5 per cent and smart classrooms in only 30.6 per cent. PARAKH 2024 showed a national Grade IX pattern of 54 per cent in language, 37 per cent in mathematics, 40 per cent in science and 40 per cent in social science. Inclusion is equally uneven: ramps were reported in 79.1 per cent of schools, while only 33.4 per cent had functional toilets for children with special needs.NITI's diagnosis forms a chain: fragmented schools make staffing difficult; weak staffing produces weak learning; weak learning pushes families towards private options or out of school; falling enrolment then justifies further consolidation. Its answer is connected school complexes, functional infrastructure, shared teachers and facilities, mastery-based pedagogy, welfare support, portable records for migrant children, local accountability, relevant vocational pathways and technology that serves judgement. Each recommendation needs an owner, deadline, public dashboard and consequence when the water, teacher or lesson does not arrive.  Ninety-four thousand doors and the danger of a spreadsheet solution. Between 2014-15 and 2024-25, the UDISE series shows government schools falling from 11.07 lakh to 10.13 lakh. Total school enrolment fell from 26.95 crore to 24.69 crore, while private schools rose broadly from 2.88 lakh to 3.39 lakh. The arithmetic is real, but the headline '94,000 schools closed' does not explain how many were merged, reclassified, cleaned from inactive records or genuinely shut. India has a falling fertility rate, migration and urbanisation. A smaller school-age population will eventually change the network. Yet demography cannot explain away the loss of trust if government schools were consistently useful, safe and aspirational.A well-funded composite school can offer subject teachers, a library, laboratory, sports, counselling and skills that a tiny single-teacher school cannot. But 'within five to ten kilometres' is not a neutral phrase in a mountain village, floodplain, forest or tribal settlement. It means a road, river, monsoon, unsafe stretch, missing bus and a parent who cannot leave work to escort a child. Girls and children with disabilities pay the highest price. Every merger must therefore be tested against travel time, safety, seasonal access, transport cost, attendance, learning and equity. Consolidation should be a service upgrade, never a budget cut or abandonment disguised as rationalisation.  Why families are voting with their feet. Parents do not need a national report to know that a child is behind. They see a paragraph copied without understanding, change counted incorrectly at a market stall, a teacher managing several grades and election duty, and a private school promising English, tests, uniforms, transport and a future. Even when a private school is not objectively stronger, it signals seriousness. The falling government share is not simply a story of affluent families leaving; it is the aspiration of small farmers, construction workers, migrants and landless labourers for children who can read a bank message, compare prices, understand a loan, use a government portal, speak to a customer, migrate safely or build a local enterprise.Quality must therefore mean visible powers: reading a medicine label, calculating a wage, writing an application, understanding a map, identifying a scam, repairing something, growing or selling something and finding the next course. The answer is not a coaching centre or an artificial English accent. It is strong foundations linked to real use: local-language learning, English as a bridge, mathematics through markets and farms, science through water and soil, digital skills through public services and livelihoods, and clear pathways to higher study, apprenticeships and enterprise. Trust returns through repeated visible acts - a clean toilet, a present teacher, a reliable meal, a child who reads better this month, and a parent who can see what the school received and spent.  When the camera enters the school. In August 2026, the youth movement known as the Cockroach Janata Party, or CJP, launched School Thik Karo - Fix the Schools. Its volunteers entered government schools, recorded conditions and published what they saw. The checklist was basic: drinking water and functional toilets; electricity and usable classrooms; boundary walls and campus safety; midday meals and teacher attendance. The visual force of the campaign mattered because a dashboard can say 'infrastructure available' while a phone video shows a broken roof, a clogged toilet, missing windows, children without benches or a class in a borrowed shed. Reports placed such exposures across Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Karnataka, Rajasthan and West Bengal. In Rajasthan, a school in Rampura Kanwarpura was reported to be functioning in a buffalo shed; later reports said the unsafe structure was demolished and a new building of about Rs 18 lakh announced.The campaign also showed how quickly school scrutiny becomes political conflict. In Bankura, West Bengal, CJP volunteer Abdul Hafeez reportedly suffered an attack along with his father, who died two days later from injuries, according to an Al Jazeera account; competing claims about political responsibility remain subject to due process. In Latur, Maharashtra, an FIR was reported against organiser Abhijeet Dipke and others after a teacher alleged unauthorised entry, filming, questioning of students and threats; CJP disputed the account. A Rajasthan team also reported an attack, while a Hingoli headmaster was reportedly suspended after complaints of intoxication and neglect. These allegations require investigation, not headline conviction.Government responses included reported restrictions in Rajasthan on outsider visits, photography, videography and interviews. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis dismissed the campaign as a political programme and said most Zilla Parishad schools were good. CJP exposures are not a representative sample, cannot measure learning and cannot replace trained inspections or social audits. But they reveal an accountability weakness. The answer is neither mob inspection nor official secrecy: it is lawful citizen access, child protection, independent audits, transparent school-level records and consequences for failure. Most teachers work under difficult conditions and should not be collectively demonised. Yet a public school must not function as a head teacher's fiefdom.  Money is moving. Trust is not. The Union's 2026-27 budget places total Ministry of Education outlay at about Rs 1,39,289 crore, including roughly Rs 83,562 crore for school education. It lists Rs 42,100 crore for Samagra Shiksha, Rs 12,749.99 crore for PM POSHAN, Rs 7,500 crore for PM SHRI and Rs 3,200 crore for Atal Tinkering Labs. Rajasthan has budgeted Rs 550 crore to repair more than 2,500 schools, Rs 1,000 crore for 400 CM-RISE schools, AI learning labs in 1,000 schools and a School on Wheels in each district, alongside a reported larger infrastructure plan. West Bengal cleared an ADB-backed project of about Rs 2,349.78 crore for roughly 430-432 schools, including classrooms, laboratories, libraries, ramps, toilets, kitchens and teacher development.The scale is welcome, but a model school in a project boundary does not repair every small primary school outside it. NITI notes that public education spending has remained around four per cent of GDP in recent years and records 4.6 per cent in 2021, below the six per cent aspiration associated with the Kothari Commission and NEP 2020. The issue is not only to spend more. It is to weight money towards remoteness, poverty, tribal and migrant populations and disability; release it predictably; ring-fence maintenance; publish its use; and protect teachers from non-teaching work. The real budget test is not a sanctioned amount but a functional service in the village.  The exceptions expose the rule. Kotlapur in Karnataka shows that the public system can revive. Its government school had effectively shut down in 2008 as parents moved children to a nearby private school. When headmaster Dr Vijaya Kumar arrived in 2025, he painted walls, built a Kannada language laboratory and small library, went door-to-door, explained entitlements and rebuilt the school's social presence. The village contributed about Rs 65,000 for CCTV. A fixed deposit of Rs 1,000 a year was created for each Grade I child, to mature after 18 years. Uniforms, books, shoes, socks and eggs made the promise visible. By 2025-26, reported enrolment had reached 42 with four teachers, supported by a School Management Committee.Kotlapur proves both possibility and indictment. Leadership, parent partnership and a visibly better school can restore trust; it is unacceptable that ordinary functionality should depend on a heroic headmaster, donations and personal ingenuity. Kerala's public investment and foundational culture, Tamil Nadu's mother-tongue and welfare emphasis, Himachal Pradesh's access in difficult terrain, Punjab's recent learning gains and community-linked models in Nagaland offer mechanisms worth adapting. The aim is not to copy a state wholesale but to identify what worked and fund it until it becomes routine.The rural school should connect the village to itself and the world. District skill maps can link schools with ITIs, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, self-help groups, cooperatives and practitioners in agriculture, food processing, repair, craft, energy, health, climate, logistics, bookkeeping and digital services. A paid practitioner may mentor a 30-60-hour module, but the teacher must convert experience into language, mathematics, science, design and reflection. Measuring a field, calculating yield, writing an invoice, checking an online payment or verifying an AI answer makes English, mathematics, science, civics and AI literacy useful. Vocational learning must not become caste or class tracking; every module needs bridges to higher study, ITI, polytechnic, apprenticeship, university and enterprise. Five international reminders, not five imports.  China shows the strength and risk of consolidation: better-resourced rural centres, shared expertise, digital links and a nutrition programme reported to benefit more than 37 million students. India can borrow the network logic only with transport, boarding and family contact. South Africa funds poorer schools more through its quintile model and combines no-fee access with nutrition committees. Brazil links social protection to education, redistributes funding through Fundeb and directs at least 30 per cent of federal school-feeding resources to family farming - a cue for deeper local procurement under PM POSHAN.Indonesia's school operational assistance model shows the value of predictable, flexible funds for broken taps, learning materials and connectivity, paired with public ledgers and audits. Finland combines serious teacher preparation with free materials, a daily meal, welfare services and transport when the journey is long or dangerous. India cannot transplant these systems, but it can borrow their principles: weighted equity, local flexibility with transparency, respected teachers, early intervention and the removal of food, health, transport and safety barriers. Ten non-negotiables for a different rural school by 2030.  Functional school guarantee. Every government school should have safe classrooms, drinking water, separate usable toilets, handwashing, electricity, a kitchen, basic furniture, accessibility, a library corner, play space and a maintenance calendar. Dashboards must report monthly functionality, not one-time availability.Rural teacher guarantee. Where there are multiple grades, provide at least two trained primary teachers and named access through a school complex to mathematics, science, English, languages, arts, physical education and vocational learning. Fill vacancies, offer hardship incentives and protect instructional time.Mastery before promotion. Test reading, writing and numeracy at the start of every year, group support by learning level, provide stigma-free catch-up and continue foundational support after Grade III. Assessment must change teaching, not punish children.English and mathematics for use. Build bilingual English around markets, health, work, migration, public services and digital communication. Teach mathematics through money, measurement, time, data, estimation, geometry and reasoning before abstract procedures become meaningless.Human-centred digital and AI literacy. Put power, connectivity, shared devices, offline content and teacher preparation before smart-classroom branding. Teach source checking, privacy, cyber safety, bias, copyright and verification. Children must use tools without surrendering judgement.Consolidate resources without abandoning habitations. Approve mergers only after testing travel, safety, monsoon access, disability access, girls' safety, cost, attendance and learning. Provide buses, bicycles, escorts or hostels when a child must travel.A local multiple-skills curriculum. Offer 30-60-hour modules in agriculture, water, food, repair, craft, energy, health, digital services, climate and enterprise. Pay and train practitioners, award portable credits and keep every academic route open.Nutrition, health and dignity. Strengthen PM POSHAN kitchens, local procurement, menus and social audits. Link schools to health screening, menstrual hygiene, counselling, disability support, physical education and mental-health referral. Track meals served, not meals sanctioned.Open governance and safe scrutiny. Train School Management Committees, give them usable budgets and publish staffing, attendance, facilities, meals, grants, repairs and learning progress without exposing children. Provide lawful observation and protected complaint channels.Weighted finance, leadership and proof. Fund remote, poor, tribal, migrant and disability-heavy schools more per child; release maintenance money predictably; train head teachers as instructional leaders; and publish a rural scorecard based on what children can do, not only what schools possess.  The 2030 test is brutally simple. By 2030, India should answer a child's question without hiding behind enrolment. Can she read a new text and explain it? Can he divide, estimate, measure and reason? Can they use English and a device to learn without losing the strength of their home language? Can they ask whether an AI answer is true, fair and safe? Can they learn a local skill without being sentenced to a caste or occupation? Can they stay through adolescence because transport, food, toilets, health and hope are present?A private tuition market can sell English, a phone can deliver a video and a skill centre can teach a machine. Only a strong public school can combine knowledge, citizenship, nutrition, dignity, peer life, local belonging and a route to the wider world for every child, including the child whose parents cannot pay. The problem is not that rural India has too many public schools. It is that too many have been left with too little capability to justify the faith placed in them. Closing a school may reduce an administrative line; rebuilding it can change a family's trajectory. Kotlapur shows the possible future, CJP shows the cost of leaving the present untouched, and NITI provides the architecture. The remaining requirement is political courage: let citizens see, make teachers capable and respected, fund the last mile and judge the system by the power it gives a child. #RuralEducation, #GovernmentSchools, #EducationInIndia, #RuralIndia, #EducationReform, #NEP2020, #NIPUNBharat, #FoundationalLearning, #EducationEquity, #DigitalLiteracy, #AILiteracy, #VocationalEducation, #PublicEducation, #SchoolInfrastructure, #TeacherShortage, #Education2030, #InclusiveEducation, #CommunityEngagement, #SocialImpact, #SustainableDevelopment ...Read more

08 Sep 2026

Climate justice cannot be separated from workers’ rights. As decarbonisation, climate change and digitalisation reshape jobs and industries, a truly sustainable transition must protect livelihoods, strengthen social dialogue and ensure decent, inclusive work. SummaryThe climate crisis is already reshaping workplaces through extreme heat, disasters, job losses and disruptions across industries, particularly in the Global South. At the same time, the shift away from fossil fuels, alongside digitalisation and automation, is changing both the number and nature of jobs, creating new challenges for workers and trade unions. The article argues that treating environmental goals and workers’ rights as separate issues creates a false conflict between jobs and climate action. A Just Transition must instead place workers and affected communities at the centre through collective bargaining, social dialogue, social protection, reskilling and gender equality. Examples such as heat agreements in Cambodia and worker-focused planning around offshore wind demonstrate how climate action and livelihood protection can work together. Ultimately, integrating labour and environmental governance is essential to ensure that the transition is not merely green, but genuinely just and inclusive. The climate crisis is no longer a distant threat. It is changing the world of work in real time - reshaping economies and workplaces. Heatwaves, floods, storms are disrupting work and industries, while entire communities tied to fossil fuel industries face decline as economies decarbonise. Countries in the global south are more prone to climate change induced disasters¹ and as such industries and workers here are more affected than others. Heavy flooding seriously affected industrial production in many Asian countries including 0Bangladesh, parts of Pakistan and India, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and China in 2023-24, particularly in the garment sector². This led to job losses as well as loss of wages for several hundreds of workers, a large number of whom are women. Heat stress is affecting workers at an unprecedented level. A 2024 report of the International Labour Organisation (ILO, 2024)³ estimated that 18,970 deaths and 22.85 million occupational injuries were attributable to excessive heat every year, with about 71% of the global workforce being exposed to excessive heat. Workers working outdoors in agriculture, construction, transport etc., bear the brunt of the heat as do workers in poorly ventilated workplaces such as foundries or even garment factories. Climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts are therefore necessary and the need is immediate, all the more so as the interests of working people are aligned with the success of climate change mitigation strategies. Governments are in the process of implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move away from fossil fuels. However, the movement from fossil fuel to renewable energy has meant loss of jobs, in sectors such as coal and oil and increased informalisation of jobs that used to be permanent jobs. Job losses, especially in unionised sectors have made trade unions wary of climate change mitigation measures. Renewable energy such as solar and wind power energy, is gaining traction, even as coal is continued to be used. China, USA and India are among the top ten solar and wind energy producing countries. They are also among the top ten coal producing countries with China and India leading. Which means that the top coal producing countries are building the resources to produce more renewable energy. But, the number of jobs in these sectors is estimated to be far less than in the traditional energy sectors such as coal and oil. Most of the jobs are precarious, and are still non-unionised. For workers and unions, decarbonisation of the economy is an additional challenge as it has affected employment both in numbers and in nature. The logical sequitur is that workers’ rights should be considered central to climate change governance – both adaptation and mitigation strategies, as workers’ jobs are being lost and as workers’ face extreme heat stress and other effects of climate change. However, this is not always the case. Compartmentalization of workers’ rights and climate justice Climate change is treated primarily as an environmental challenge, even though workers and people in general are affected by it. Climate governance frameworks, whether policy, law, or corporate guidelines, treat environmental goals as completely separate from workers’ rights. The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a case in point. The ICJ issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion⁴ affirming governments’ binding obligations under international law to combat climate change through measures that limit greenhouse gas emissions and foster international cooperation, to achieve the objectives of their nationally determined contributions. Although the Court recognised the binding nature of the Paris Agreement⁵ alongside the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it notably omitted explicit reference to workers’ rights. The omission is significant because the Paris Agreement in its Preamble itself affirms “the imperative of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs”⁶. The ICJ’s opinion in omitting workers’ rights follows a trend in climate governance - compartmentalisation between labour rights and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Government policies as well as guidelines of Intergovernmental organisations such as Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) follow the same trend. The Paris Agreement follows the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Guidelines⁷ for a ‘just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all’ which identified the importance of social dialogue, social protection, fundamental principles of rights at work and gender specific policies for achieving just transition. Just transition is broadly understood to mean promoting environmentally sustainable economies in a way that is fair and inclusive to everyone concerned – workers, enterprises and communities – by creating decent work opportunities and leaving no one behind. However, government policy frameworks for climate change mitigation which are formulated as a consequence of governments’ obligations under the Paris Agreement are drawn up with little or no inputs from trade unions. In Chile, which has taken its climate change mitigation obligations seriously, it needed a Supreme Court judgement to ensure consultation with affected workers in the closure of a coal powered thermo electric power plant. In the case of Company Workers Union of Maritima Commercial Somarco Ltd. and others vs. Ministry of Energy⁸, the obligation of governments to ensure just transition was recognised by the Supreme Court. It was held that agreements adopted by the State of Chile to achieve carbon neutrality require a just transition strategy both for the workers harmed by the loss of their direct and indirect source of employment and for the communities affected by the loss of services linked to the development of the declining thermoelectric activity. The ruling ordered the government authorities to implement a plan for the workers affected by the decarbonization process, consulting them in that process. The 2023 update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct⁹ includes ‘recommendations for enterprises to align with internationally agreed goals on climate change and biodiversity’ and ‘recommendations on how enterprises are expected to conduct due diligence on impacts and business relationships related to the use of their products and services’. The recommendations on climate change do not specifically mention workers’ rights except in the context of training in environment, health and safety, and hazardous waste. This compartmentalisation is also seen in policy frameworks on human rights due diligence¹⁰, where climate change mitigation and adaptation has assumed greater importance. Most of these laws and guidelines have clauses on workers’ rights and environment/ climate issues, which remain isolated from each other. Labour rights and environmental standards are treated as being in separate silos. 1. Asia and the small island nations in the Pacific are affected more than Europe/ N America. See https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-and-extreme-weather-impacts-hit-asia-hard .Since Asia is the hub of garment production, this industry was affected disproportionately in 2023-24. 2. ILO, The Heat is On: How heat stress impacts the apparel industry, jobs, and worker health, Geneva: International Labour Office, 2025. 3. Flouris, A., Azzi, M., Graczyk, H., Nafradi, B., and Scott, N., eds. 2024. Heat at Work: Implications for Safety and Health. A Global Review of the Science, Policy and Practice. International Labour Office, Geneva, 2024. 4. Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change (Advisory Opinion) [2025] ICJ Rep. 5. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its overarching goal is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. See more here - https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf 6. Ibid. 7. International Labour Organization, Guidelines for a Just Transition towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies for All (ILO 2015). 8. https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/company-workers-union-of-maritima-commercial-somarco-limited-and-others-with-ministry-of-energy 9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD 2023). 10. There is an increasing number of human rights due diligence (HRDD) law and policy frameworks such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the German and French laws on corporate due diligence which are meant to deal with responsibilities of multinational corporations in their supply chains across the world. Decarbonisation and digitalisation: a double disruption This compartmentalisation risks creating a narrative that there is an apparent contradiction between measures to mitigate climate change and the rights of workers; that advancing climate justice would necessitate sacrificing secure employment or organised labour power. This is a wrong narrative. There is only one planet on which both jobs and the environment exist, and because there’s no economy, and no work, on a dead planet. The climate crisis has coincided with major advances in technology, and the world of work is facing challenges brought forth by decarbonisation and digitalisation. Workplaces are changing with the introduction of newer technologies both because of advances in technology and by the need to decarbonise the economy. The changes are far more rapid than we have seen in the past, and the effect is felt in several sectors. Technology change is not new. Technology has always changed the way industries function and therefore the way that workers have worked. The first three industrial revolutions changed manufacturing processes. The first industrial revolution transformed work with the advent of mechanization and steam power. This was also the era of child labour, forced labour and unsafe workplaces, and no workers’ rights. The second industrial revolution with greater use of electricity and mass production saw the beginnings of organized labour and trade unions across the world with workers’ rights being recognized, if not implemented everywhere. Labour laws which recognized workers’ rights, provided at least a way for trade unions to collectively bargain. The third industrial revolution with increased automation and the use of robots that changed the factory floor in a very visible manner. This phase also saw the beginnings of supply chains and weakening of workers’ rights. Trade unions were actively opposing the introduction of computers, but without much success. With the change in technology, the nature as well as number of jobs changed. In Industry 4.0 or the fourth industrial revolution which involves digitization and the deployment of cyber physical systems, the transition is in conjunction with greater automation. More sophisticated robots that require little to no human interaction are already in use in automotive factories. The automotive sector exemplifies this double disruption. The transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles is decarbonisation-driven. But it also coincides with automation, robotics, and digitalisation. Workers are losing jobs, the remaining jobs are changing¹¹ and companies want to rescind from their collective bargaining agreements, as in the case of Volkswagen in Europe.¹² Trade unions in Bosch in India report that new ‘high-tech’ units are being set up without consulting existing unions, employing qualified engineers and changing the nature of the job from blue collar to white collar¹³. Just Transition The Just Transition Guidelines of the ILO have as far back as 2015 articulated that sustainability and justice can and should go together. ILO’s Just Transition Guidelines identified the importance of social dialogue, social protection, fundamental principles of rights at work and gender specific policies for achieving just transition. An understanding of Just Transition and its principles is thus key to understanding that the binary of jobs versus environment is a false one. An effective implementation of the fundamental principles of rights at work particularly, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining will ensure the full participation of workers and their unions, taking into account their priorities. This would require employers/ companies to discuss with unions what changes are coming and how it would affect the workforce. It may mean that workers’ would need to be reskilled (to do a different job) or upskilled (e.g., acquiring new skills) as needed. Unions should be able to negotiate and collectively bargain work re-organisation. This underlines the importance of both collective bargaining and social dialogue, with a focus on unions being provided information by employers and governments about the impending and planned changes of work and work organisation in the workplace. The role of governments in ensuring that the ILO’s fundamental principles of rights at work¹⁴ becomes crucial. 11. The future of work in the automotive industry, Technical meeting on the future of work in the automotive industry (Geneva, 15–19 February 2021), Note on the proceedings, International Labour Office, Sectoral Policies Department, Geneva, ILO, 2021. 12. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cje9kv3q94po - Previously agreed wage increases were cancelled. An agreement between the company and the union was made for ‘cutting’ 35000 jobs by 2030. 13. Discussions with Bosch India unions in Pune and Bangalore (October – November 2022). 14. The ILO’s fundamental principles of rights at work do not require ratification of specific conventions. All countries are bound by the fundamental principles by virtue of their membership in the ILO. Making transitions ‘Just’ Trade unions are learning to deal with these challenges and are putting forward demands in order to protect workers from effects of climate change as well as digitalization. We are beginning to see examples of unions negotiating effects of climate change. The ‘Heat Agreements’ in garment factories in Cambodia¹⁵ is one such example. According to these agreements, which have been negotiated between unions and employers, if the temperature inside the factory rises above 35 C, cooling systems need to be turned on, and workers can take 5-10 minutes break. This is a very concrete example of collective bargaining being used to adapt to climate change. Another inspiring example is the successful campaign in Maine, USA where an offshore wind energy farm was built further away from the shore so that the livelihoods of the local fishing community could be protected¹⁶. This is a situation which could easily have been posited as workers vs. environmental groups vs. local communities. However, the importance of climate mitigation as well as the need to protect livelihoods were both prioritized and the wind farm was commissioned further away from the shore, while including collectively bargained wages for the workers employed on the wind farm. The importance of collective bargaining in protecting workers from the effects of climate change as well as the adaptation/ mitigation measures that governments are undertaking cannot be overstated. However, these examples are too few, with concrete clauses protecting workers’ rights, not very prevalent. The recent ILO Working paper on the role of collective bargaining on promoting just transitions¹⁷ (Schmidt and Braga, 2025) analyses 512 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) to understand the presence and scope of clauses on Just Transition. While 58 of the agreements had clauses on just transition, most of them were declarative clauses and only 12 were more of a transformative nature. Topics in the agreements included hybrid work (aimed at reducing carbon footprint), working time organisation for extreme heat and upskilling of workers and managers. In addition, the Working Paper looked at six case studies in detail, outside of the 512 CBAs, and identified that the key topics were workers’ representation, planning for job changes and skill development, education and environmental management. These issues, particularly workers’ representation, planning for job changes and skill development are very much part of the Just Transition Guidelines. The ILO’s Just Transition guidelines are clear: climate adaptation and mitigation measures must go hand-in-hand with decent work, social dialogue, gender equality, and social protection. Just transition would mean promoting environmentally sustainable economies in a way that is fair and inclusive to everyone concerned – workers, enterprises and communities – by creating decent work opportunities and leaving no one behind. Done right, it’s a roadmap. There needs to be a renewed commitment to the ILO’s Just Transition Principles, particularly from employers and governments. Collective bargaining and social dialogue must be institutionalized with trade unions and affected communities being part of the drafting of climate strategies and plans. A robust social protection policy including health insurance, income support and retraining for workers is needed with the government playing a strong role, making sure that employers contribute their share. Just Transition would also mean that all workers are considered equal, for nothing can be ‘just’ without the element of gender justice. Women workers, who are typically not considered qualified for jobs that involve ‘high technology’ would need to be active participants. This requires a policy framework that includes work in the informal sectors, as well as low-waged manufacturing and services sectors where women are disproportionately concentrated. A Just Transition must dismantle these barriers, ensuring women access training and employment in green and digitalised economies. Without gender equity, no transition can be truly just. In addition, digital – driven technology requires extensive mining of minerals. This too needs to be approached within a framework of Just Transition, embedding workers’ rights and rights of communities into all policy decisions. 15. Heat Agreements in Cambodia: An interview with Somalay So and Joe Buckley, The Global Labour Rights Reporter, Vol. IV, Issue 1, 2025, p. 17-21. 16. Deedee Fitzpatrick and Hannah Sachs, “Labour leading on climate: advancing high-quality unions jobs in the emerging U.S. clean energy sector” in A Just Transition Law for Climate Justice, The Global Labour Rights Reporter, Vol. IV, Issue 1, 2025, pp 58-66. 17. Schmidt, V., Braga, C. The role of collective bargaining in promoting just transitions. ILO Working Paper 145. Geneva: International Labour International Labour Office, 2025. Conclusion How technology is applied and who benefits from it will determine whether the changes in the world of work is a Just Transition or only a green transition. The tools for a fairer future already exist in unions and in collective agreements. Integrating environmental and labour governance will materialise the idea that justice and sustainability can, and must, go hand in hand. References Flouris, A., Azzi, M., Graczyk, H., Nafradi, B., and Scott, N., eds. 2024. Heat at Work: Implications for Safety and Health. A Global Review of the Science, Policy and Practice. International Labour Office, Geneva, 2024.ILO, The Heat is On: How heat stress impacts the apparel industry, jobs, and worker health, Geneva: International Labour Office, 2025.Deedee Fitzpatrick and Hannah Sachs, “Labour leading on climate: advancing high-quality unions jobs in the emerging U.S. clean energy sector” in A Just Transition Law for Climate Justice, The Global Labour Rights Reporter, Vol. IV, Issue 1, 2025 available here: The Global Labour Rights Reporter - ILAW Network.Schmidt, V., Braga, C. The role of collective bargaining in promoting just transitions. ILO Working Paper 145. Geneva: ILO Working Paper 145. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2025.  ABOUT AUTHOR   Apoorva Kaiwar is a women’s and workers’ rights activist ...Read more

07 Sep 2026

Why volunteering — for nature, for the hungry, for the sick — is not capitalism's alibi but the slow architecture of the world after it A recent critique argued that volunteering doesn't save the world — it saves capitalism, laundering unpaid labour into résumé lines while the state quietly disappears. The charge is largely true. But the verdict is premature. In an age of total surveillance, monopolised violence and algorithmic war, the old grammar of revolution — barricades, arms, the seizure of the state in a single dramatic rupture — has been rendered nearly unusable. What remains is the slower, less cinematic work of building, person by person and meal by meal, the institutions of a different world inside the shell of this one. This essay accepts the critique in full and then asks the harder question it declines to ask: if not volunteering, what?AT A GLANCE▸  Bhabani Shankar Nayak's recent critique in Counterview.net — that institutionalised volunteering has become a subsidy to capital, laundering unpaid labour as “employability” — is correct as a diagnosis of the NGO-industrial complex and the résumé-internship economy.▸  But the critique conflates two different things: volunteering-as-labour-arbitrage (CSR days, unpaid internships, service-learning credit) and volunteering-as-mutual-aid (feeding, teaching, healing, restoring land in solidarity, without a market intermediary).▸  Classical revolutionary rupture — armed seizure of state power — is not a live option for most movements today. States hold overwhelming and increasingly automated coercive capacity: mass surveillance, predictive policing, drones, and information-warfare infrastructures that can pre-empt, infiltrate or discredit any organised threat before it matures.▸  Under these conditions, a Gramscian “war of position” — the patient construction of counter-institutions, counter-culture and counter-common-sense — is not a consolation prize for the defeated Left. It is the only strategy structurally available.▸  Mutual-aid volunteering in nature restoration, food and education access, and care for the sick is precisely this kind of counter-institution-building — provided it is organised on solidarity rather than charity logic, is politically self-aware, and refuses NGO-isation and capture.▸  The article proposes four conditions that separate insurgent volunteering from the captured variety Nayak rightly condemns, and argues for a 10X scaling of solidarity infrastructure as the realistic evolutionary path to a post-capitalist order.KEYWORDSvolunteering and capitalism, mutual aid vs charity, NGO-isation, Gramsci war of position, dual power, prefigurative politics, community mutual aid, surveillance state and revolution, solidarity economy, commons restoration, community health workers, food sovereignty, informal education movements, counter-hegemony, post-capitalist infrastructureThis essay is written in direct response to, and in substantial agreement with, Bhabani Shankar Nayak's critique “Why volunteering won't save the world, it will save capitalism” (Counterview, September 2026), which is quoted and characterised, not reproduced, throughout.  01  THE CHARGE SHEET, AND WHY IT STICKS Start by conceding the case, because it deserves to be conceded. When a food bank is staffed by unpaid graduates instead of paid workers, when a university calls an internship a “learning opportunity” to avoid paying minimum wage, when a bank sends five hundred employees to paint a school for one afternoon and issues a press release about “giving back” while lobbying against the taxes that would have funded that school properly — this is not solidarity. It is what the critique names it: a hidden ledger, in which goodwill is logged as free labour and the state's retreat from public provision is disguised as civic virtue. The mechanism is not subtle once you see it. Governments cut welfare, education and health budgets under fiscal-discipline doctrines. The resulting gaps are real, visible, and morally urgent — hungry children, unlettered adolescents, the uninsured sick. Into that gap steps the third sector: NGOs, charities, university “service learning” offices, corporate CSR departments — each chronically underfunded, each therefore structurally dependent on a rotating supply of free or underpaid labour. The worker who might otherwise have organised for better wages instead donates evenings to patch the hole the state was supposed to fill. Capitalism gets a twofer: the crisis it produces is contained just enough to prevent political combustion, and the very people most likely to be angry about it are kept exhausted, credentialed, and grateful. This is an old trick with a new interface. Empires have always known how to convert the instinct to help into a supply of foot soldiers — for war, for missions, for “development.” What is new is the scale and the software: LinkedIn endorsements, gamified volunteer-hour trackers, university dashboards that convert compassion into a line on a CV. The critique is right that this is, in the most literal economic sense, a subsidy — free labour transferred from citizens to institutions that could, in nearly every case, afford to pay for it. None of what follows disputes any of this. What follows disputes the conclusion drawn from it. 02  THE CONFLATION AT THE HEART OF THE ARGUMENT The critique's fatal move is a quiet one: it treats “volunteering” as a single, uniform category, and then diagnoses the whole category by its worst instance. But a corporate CSR day and a community health worker walking eight kilometres to check on a diabetic neighbour are not the same act wearing different clothes. They are opposite acts that happen to share a word. Call the first kind extractive volunteering: unpaid labour performed for an institution, under that institution's control, producing value the institution captures — a cleaner riverbank the municipality didn't have to pay to clean, a tutored child whose school didn't have to hire a teacher, a “portfolio” the intern built for a company that never intended to hire them. Extractive volunteering has an employer, even when it pretends not to. It has a hierarchy, a beneficiary that is not the volunteer, and an exit that leaves the underlying system exactly as it was — indeed, reinforced, because the pressure that might have forced structural reform has been vented. Call the second kind insurgent mutual aid: reciprocal, horizontally organised solidarity performed by people with each other, not for an institution — the tradition Kropotkin described a century before the term “volunteering” existed, the one that fed New Orleans after Katrina when the state failed to, that vaccinated Sundarbans hamlets when no ambulance would cross the river, that has, in Rojava and in the Zapatista caracoles, built entire education and health systems outside the state and the market simultaneously. Insurgent mutual aid has no employer. Its beneficiary and its performer are the same class of people, sometimes literally the same people on different days. It does not vent pressure for reform — it builds, in miniature, the alternative that the reform was supposed to deliver and never did. These two things can look identical from a satellite photograph: people showing up to feed other people. They are not identical in political function. One reproduces the system it patches. The other rehearses the system that will replace it. The critique is entirely correct about the first. It has almost nothing to say about the second — and the second is where the real argument for volunteering has always lived. 03  WHY THE BARRICADES ARE CLOSED It is worth stating plainly why this distinction matters more now than at any point in the last century. For most of modern history, the theory of change available to anyone serious about transforming an unjust order ran, in the end, through rupture — the strike that becomes an uprising, the uprising that seizes the arsenal, the arsenal that makes the old state ungovernable until it falls or negotiates. That theory was never comfortable, and it was rarely bloodless, but it was at least structurally available: the state's monopoly on violence was real but not absolute, information moved slowly enough that organisation could outrun suppression, and a determined mass could, in the right conditions, out-manoeuvre the guns. That structural availability has been quietly withdrawn. Contemporary states — and the corporations increasingly indistinguishable from them in surveillance capacity — hold instruments no nineteenth- or twentieth-century revolutionary faced. Predictive policing flags organisers before they finish organising. Facial recognition and telecom metadata make anonymous assembly nearly extinct. Drones and precision weapons have widened the asymmetry between state violence and any conceivable popular counter-force to a gap that cannot be closed by courage alone. And information warfare — troll farms, deepfakes, algorithmically amplified disinformation — can discredit, divide or simply drown out a movement before it reaches the size at which rupture becomes even theoretically conceivable. This is not a counsel of despair; it is a description of terrain. A general who tells her army to charge a machine-gun nest because charging worked at Agincourt is not being brave, she is being obsolete. The insistence on rupture as the only serious politics, in 2026, in a world of biometric ID and networked drones, is that same obsolescence dressed as radicalism. It is precisely because the war of manoeuvre is closed that the war of position — Antonio Gramsci's phrase for the slow contest over institutions, culture and common sense that precedes and enables any real transfer of power — stops being the fallback for the defeated and becomes the only strategy left standing. The war of position is not merely propaganda or “awareness.” Gramsci meant something closer to what the Right, in fact, understood and executed with terrifying patience over the last forty years: build the schools, the media, the think-tanks, the churches and the community organisations that produce a population which finds your worldview simply obvious before a single vote is cast or a single law is changed. The Left's equivalent has no reason to look like pamphlets and everything to do with clinics, food networks, seed banks, tutoring circles and cooperative workshops that produce, generation by generation, a population that has already experienced — not merely imagined — a different way of meeting human need. 04  FEEDING THE POOREST IS NOT CHARITY — IT IS PREFIGURATION Consider what it actually means, politically, for a community kitchen to feed a hundred families a week using donated, gleaned or collectively grown food, distributed without means-testing, run by a rotating roster of neighbours rather than paid staff answerable to a donor. Nayak's critique would ask: does this let the state off the hook for its failure to guarantee food security? In the short run, marginally, yes — exactly as it would for a corporate soup kitchen. But the resemblance ends at the ladle. A corporate or NGO feeding programme is designed to be efficient, scalable and fundable — which means it is designed to be legible to donors and unthreatening to the order that produced the hunger. A mutual-aid kitchen, organised by and answerable to the people who eat there, is designed to be replicable by anyone with a stove and a network — which means it is a working demonstration that food security does not require a market, a means test, or a state that has to be lobbied into caring. Every family that eats there for a year has lived, concretely, one year inside a small post-scarcity economy. That is not a subsidy to capitalism. That is muscle memory for what comes after it. The same logic runs through informal education. A free evening tuition circle for children whose government school has forty students to a teacher is, on Nayak's terms, patching a hole the state cut. It is also, simultaneously, something the state audit will never capture: a demonstration, repeated thousands of times across thousands of neighbourhoods, that knowledge does not require a fee, a rank or a market credential to be transmitted — that teaching is a thing neighbours can simply do for each other. Kerala's mass literacy campaigns of the 1980s were volunteer-run, politically organised, and explicitly framed by their organisers not as charity but as a rehearsal for a more democratic distribution of knowledge; they are widely credited with reshaping the state's own subsequent commitments. The volunteering did not let the state off the hook. It changed what citizens believed the state — and themselves — were capable of, which is a precondition for the hook ever being applied. 05  NATURE, RESTORED IN COMMON, IS A REHEARSAL FOR PROPERTY UNDONE Environmental volunteering draws a particularly sharp version of Nayak's charge: the corporate “tree-plantation day,” timed for the annual sustainability report, is almost a parody of extractive volunteering — a fossil-fuel-adjacent company photographing its interns beside saplings that a monitoring report six months later will quietly note as mostly dead. This is worth naming with contempt, not softened language. It is greenwashing with a spade. But set beside it a different practice: a Sundarbans village collectively restoring a mangrove belt that a shrimp-farming lease had stripped, using traditional knowledge of which species hold a riverbank against a cyclone, governing the replanted commons through a village council rather than a forest department, and defending it, later, against the next lease application. This is not volunteering in Nayak's sense at all — there is no employer, no CSR budget, no résumé line. It is commoning: the direct, collective re-assertion that a resource belongs to the community that depends on it and not to whoever holds the paper title. Every hectare restored this way is simultaneously an ecological repair and a small, concrete defeat for the enclosure logic that produced the degradation in the first place — a logic that is, at bottom, the same logic Nayak is indicting. This is the pattern across the domain: river-cleaning volunteering organised by and for a fishing community that depends on the river is not the same act, dressed differently, as a bank's staff photographed picking up plastic for an afternoon. The first builds a durable local capacity for self-governance of a shared resource — the precise capacity that a genuinely post-capitalist ecology would require everywhere, at scale. The second builds a slide for an annual report. Confusing them, in either direction, empties the word “volunteering” of the only meaning worth arguing about. 06  CARING FOR THE SICK: DECOMMODIFYING THE BODY Nowhere is the market's colonisation of human need more complete than in health, and nowhere, correspondingly, is solidarity-based volunteering more politically charged. A community health worker network — trained volunteers who monitor pregnant women, manage basic chronic-disease follow-up, and connect the acutely ill to formal care across the last mile that ambulances and clinics cannot reach — does not simply fill a staffing gap, though it does that too. It re-establishes, in practice, the proposition that a person's survival should not depend on their capacity to pay: the single proposition the market in health care exists to deny. Every hour spent this way is doubly subversive. It denies the insurance industry, the private hospital chain and the pharmaceutical distributor a transaction that would otherwise have occurred, or would otherwise have gone unmet and become a statistic. And it demonstrates — to the volunteer, to the patient, to everyone watching — that care is a thing human beings are simply able to give each other directly, without a bill. This is precisely the demonstration that a market order most needs suppressed, because markets survive on the manufactured belief that need can only be met through exchange. Every unpaid hour of nursing a neighbour is a small, stubborn refutation of that belief, repeated until it becomes, again, common sense. This is not to romanticise the exhaustion of volunteer caregivers, disproportionately women, who are too often expected to absorb infinite unpaid emotional and physical labour precisely because it is naturalised as “what women do.” That exploitation is real, and any serious politics of care volunteering must name and resist it as sharply as it resists corporate CSR — through rotation, through collective rather than individual burden, through refusing the guilt-trip that keeps any one person's labour infinite. Insurgent mutual aid that reproduces gendered exploitation is not insurgent. It is merely extraction with a different manager. 07  FOUR CONDITIONS THAT SEPARATE INSURGENCY FROM CAPTURE If the same physical act — feeding, teaching, healing, restoring — can be either a subsidy to capital or a rehearsal for its supersession, the difference cannot be found in the act itself. It has to be found in how the act is organised. Four conditions, drawn from the movements that have actually managed to hold this line — the Zapatista health promoters, Cooperation Jackson's solidarity economy in Mississippi, the Rojava communes, Kerala's literacy volunteers, India's own community-forest movements — mark the border. First, horizontal governance. The people served must also govern the effort — deciding what is needed, how it is run, who is accountable — rather than receiving a service designed elsewhere by a donor, a board or a corporate CSR committee. The moment a funder's priorities override a community's own, the effort has re-entered extractive territory regardless of anyone's intentions. Second, refusal of NGO-isation. This is the hardest and most counter-intuitive condition, because NGO status brings real resources. But registered-charity dependence on donor cycles reliably re-imposes donor priorities, donor timelines and donor-legible metrics — the precise machinery Nayak's critique is describing — onto what began as autonomous solidarity. Movements that have held their edge longest are the ones that diversified funding away from any single institutional donor, kept a base of dues-paying or barter-contributing members, or simply stayed small and federated rather than scaling into a single fundable organisation. Third, explicit politicisation. A feeding programme that never discusses why people are hungry will, almost by default, drift into the charity logic the critique condemns — because charity, unlike solidarity, does not require an analysis of causes, only of symptoms. The mutual-aid tradition that has actually built power has always paired the material act with political education: the Black Panther Party's free breakfast programme was never separable from the political meetings that surrounded it; Kerala's literacy volunteers were, to a person, also cadre of a mass political movement. Depoliticised service is charity in solidarity's clothing. Fourth, federation over scale. Extractive volunteering wants to scale — bigger NGOs, bigger CSR budgets, more standardised metrics — because scale is what makes it fundable and fundability is what makes it controllable from above. Insurgent mutual aid should not try to become one large organisation; it should try to become ten thousand small, similar, loosely federated ones, sharing method and solidarity but retaining local governance. A single large structure can be captured, regulated, or defunded in one stroke. Ten thousand small ones, linked by shared practice rather than shared hierarchy, cannot. 08  THE HONEST OBJECTIONS, ANSWERED RATHER THAN BURIED Three objections deserve to be met head-on rather than waved away. The first: doesn't even insurgent mutual aid still let the state avoid its obligations, whatever its internal politics? Partially, yes — any unmet need that gets met by anyone, anywhere, marginally reduces the immediate political pressure for state provision. But the alternative is not a choice between mutual aid and state provision; in the world as it actually exists, for the hundreds of millions the state has already abandoned, the choice is between mutual aid and nothing. Refusing to feed a hungry child today because feeding her might theoretically delay a parliamentary reform is not solidarity. It is a wager placed with someone else's hunger. The second: is “war of position” simply a comforting story that lets the Left avoid ever confronting power directly? It can become that, and often has — this is a real risk, not a straw man. The safeguard is not to abandon institution-building but to insist, as a matter of discipline, on the fourth condition above: politicisation. Mutual aid that never names the system it is compensating for, never links its members into wider movements, and never uses its accumulated trust and organisation to support strikes, land defence, or electoral and legal fights when those openings appear, has indeed gone soft. The war of position is not pacifism; it is patience with a purpose — the purpose being to arrive, eventually, at moments of genuine confrontation with a base that is organised, fed, educated and healthy enough to hold the line, rather than exhausted, isolated and dependent. The third, and the sharpest: can this really add up to “all-out social change,” or is it destined to remain a thousand admirable local projects that never dent the aggregate structure of capital? Here the honest answer is that scale and time are doing real work in the argument, and the case would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. No single feeding programme or river-restoration project transforms a national economy. But counter-hegemony has never worked by single projects; it works by density and duration — enough parallel institutions, sustained over enough decades, that they begin to constitute a genuine alternative infrastructure that people can step into, exactly as neoliberalism itself did not win in a single election but through fifty years of capturing universities, courts, media and common sense before it ever captured a parliament. There is no guarantee this works faster, or works at all. There is only the observation that it is, at present, the only lever within reach that is not already broken in our hands. 09  THE 10X ASK: FROM SCATTERED KINDNESS TO PARALLEL INFRASTRUCTURE What would it mean to take this seriously at ten times the current scale, rather than as a scattering of admirable local exceptions? It would mean treating solidarity infrastructure — food networks, tutoring circles, community health worker corps, commons-restoration collectives — not as a supplement to political organising but as its foundation and its training ground: the place where a movement's actual base is built, tested and trusted, long before any ballot, strike or negotiation. It would mean federating these efforts deliberately across regions and issues, so that a mangrove-restoration collective in the Sundarbans and a free-tutoring circle in a northern industrial town and a community health-worker network in a drought belt understand themselves as nodes of a single, if loosely joined, project — sharing method, mutual reinforcement and, when the moment calls for it, coordinated action — rather than as unconnected acts of individual virtue. It would mean measuring success not by the donor-legible metrics that extractive volunteering optimises for — beneficiaries served, hours logged, photographs taken — but by the metrics that matter to the war of position: how many people have directly experienced provisioning without a market, how many local leaders have been trained who owe nothing to any funder, how resilient the network proves the next time a state or corporate actor tries to co-opt, license or shut it down. And it would mean an unsentimental honesty about the difference this essay has tried to hold onto throughout: that showing up is not, by itself, virtuous, that the same gesture can subsidise the machine or undermine it depending entirely on who governs it and why, and that the volunteer who wants to matter has to ask not only “am I helping?” but the harder question Nayak's critique forces into the open — “helping whom, on whose terms, and toward what world?front” Capitalism, as the original critique rightly says, is extremely good at monetising even our best impulses. But it is good at that only when those impulses remain individual, depoliticised and institutionally captured. Organised differently — horizontally, politically, federally, at scale, over time — the same impulse to feed a stranger, teach a child, nurse the sick and restore a river becomes something capitalism has never yet learned to buy back: a population that has already, in practice, unlearned its dependence on capitalism to meet the most basic facts of a human life. That unlearning, repeated across enough kitchens, classrooms, clinics and riverbanks for long enough, is not a substitute for revolution. In an age when the old revolution's tools have been taken out of our hands, it may be the only version of one still standing.HASHTAGS #Volunteering  #MutualAid  #SocialChange  #Capitalism  #Solidarity  #WarOfPosition  #Commons  #CivilSociety  #DualPower  #Gramsci  #ClimateAction  #FoodJustice  #CommunityHealth  #EnvironmentalRestoration  #EvolutionarySocialChange ...Read more

29 Aug 2026

Kolkata| 29 August, 2026 India is looking to its coastline for a new sustainability opportunity, from mangrove restoration and blue carbon to seaweed farming and fisheries. But the real test is whether ocean-based growth can protect ecosystems and improve coastal livelihoods at the same time. Summary India's blue economy is expanding across conservation, fisheries, aquaculture and emerging ocean-based industries. The government is using MISHTI to restore mangroves, while seaweed cultivation and marine fish farming are being promoted as new blue-economy activities. India is also a major global fisheries producer, with the sector supporting millions of livelihoods. But measuring the climate value of coastal ecosystems remains more complicated than simply counting trees or calculating land-based carbon. For communities living along India's coastline, the transition is equally about income, access to resources, markets and benefit sharing. The real challenge is to ensure that blue-carbon projects and ocean-based businesses create measurable environmental gains without turning coastal communities into passive beneficiaries of a transition happening around them. KeywordsBlue Economy India, Blue Carbon, Mangrove Restoration, Coastal Livelihoods, Seaweed Farming, Sustainable Fisheries, Mariculture, Coastal Conservation, Ocean Economy, Marine Ecosystems, MISHTI, Sustainable Development Can India turn its coastline into its next sustainability frontier? India’s relationship with the ocean is economic before it is environmental. The country’s 11,099-km coastline supports fisheries, aquaculture, ports, tourism and millions of coastal livelihoods. The fisheries sector alone supports nearly 30 million livelihoods, according to NITI Aayog, while India accounts for around 8% of global fish production. Fish and fishery products generated about ₹60,523 crore in export earnings in FY2023–24. That makes the blue economy more than an environmental concept. It is equally a question of livelihoods, incomes, jobs and the future of coastal communities. At the same time, India’s coastline contains ecosystems with significant climate value. Mangroves, seagrasses, tidal wetlands and coastal sediments can store carbon while also helping protect coastal communities from erosion, storms and other hazards. This is where the idea of blue carbon enters the conversation. But India’s blue economy is much broader than carbon alone. It includes fisheries, aquaculture, seaweed, marine biotechnology, coastal tourism and ecosystem restoration, alongside emerging opportunities to create economic value from healthy marine ecosystems. The opportunity is substantial. So is the balancing act. A project can produce a strong sustainability headline without creating lasting benefits for the communities living along the coast. The challenge is ensuring that higher incomes do not come at the expense of the ecosystems that make those livelihoods possible. The real question, therefore, is not simply how much economic value India can generate from its coastline. But it is who creates that value, who benefits from it and whether the coastal ecosystem remains healthy enough to support those livelihoods in the long run. INDIA'S BLUE ECONOMY MANGROVES↓BLUE CARBON + COASTAL PROTECTION SEAWEED↓NEW LIVELIHOODS FISHERIES↓FOOD + INCOME MARICULTURE↓AQUACULTURE + ENTERPRISE TOURISM↓LOCAL ECONOMIC VALUE ↓ BLUE ECONOMYEconomic growth + ecosystem protection + coastal livelihoodsIs MISHTI turning mangrove restoration into a climate and livelihood strategy?Mangroves are at the heart of India’s blue-carbon conversation, but their value extends far beyond the carbon they store. They can help protect coastlines, support fisheries and provide livelihoods for communities living along the shore. The government launched MISHTI - Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats & Tangible Incomes - in June 2023 to promote mangrove restoration across India’s coastline. The programme’s original target covered approximately 540 sq km across nine coastal states and four Union Territories. By 2023–24 and 2024–25, the government reported that 26,396.34 hectares of degraded mangrove area had been brought under restoration through MISHTI, along with convergence with State CAMPA, MGNREGS and other schemes. A national MISHTI workshop held in January 2026 also placed emphasis on scientific restoration, climate resilience, livelihood generation and community participation. Planting mangroves is only the beginning; the real test is whether they survive, restore ecosystems and support the communities that depend on them. The more meaningful test is what happens after planting. How many hectares survive? Are the right species being restored in the right locations? What was the ecological condition before restoration? Has the project affected how local communities access fishing grounds, forests or other coastal resources? Who receives the livelihood benefits? And, critically, how much money was actually spent on restoration and community outcomes? India’s latest official assessment puts the country’s total mangrove cover at 4,991.68 sq km. West Bengal accounts for the largest share at 42.45%, followed by Gujarat at 23.66%. That makes both states particularly important to India’s blue-carbon story, but also places greater importance on ensuring that restoration is ecologically sound, locally relevant and capable of delivering benefits that extend beyond the project period.MISHTI: FROM PLANTING TO PROOFECOLOGICAL BASELINE↓SITE SELECTION↓COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION↓RESTORATION↓SURVIVAL MONITORING↓CARBON MEASUREMENT↓LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS↓ LONG-TERM OUTCOME The measure of restoration is not saplings planted. It is ecosystems that survive. Why is blue carbon harder to measure than carbon on land?This is one of the biggest challenges for India’s emerging blue economy. Carbon stored on land can often be measured within relatively defined boundaries, but coastal ecosystems are constantly changing. In blue-carbon systems, carbon can be stored not only in vegetation but also in coastal sediments. Tides, erosion, sediment movement, changes in land use and ecosystem degradation can all affect how much carbon remains stored and for how long. That makes a credible blue-carbon claim much more demanding than simply counting mangroves or measuring the area restored. A robust assessment needs to establish a clear baseline, identify the relevant carbon pools, define the geographical boundary and monitoring period, use a recognised methodology and assess how permanent the carbon storage is likely to be. India’s blue-economy investment framework identifies mangrove, coral and seagrass restoration and blue-carbon credits as potential investment opportunities, alongside activities such as seaweed farming and aquaculture. But this is where an important distinction needs to be maintained: An ecosystem can have significant environmental value even when its carbon benefit cannot yet be measured precisely enough - or converted into a tradable carbon credit. That means blue-carbon policy should not reduce the value of a mangrove, seagrass bed or coastal wetland to how many carbon credits it can generate. Their role in biodiversity, coastal protection, fisheries and local livelihoods also needs to be counted.THE BLUE-CARBON ACCOUNTING GAP COASTAL ECOSYSTEM Mangrove biomass+Sediment carbon+Ecological services ↓ MEASUREMENT Baseline+Carbon stock+Change over time+Permanence ↓ VERIFICATION Methodology+Monitoring+Audit trail ↓ CREDIBLE BLUE-CARBON CLAIM An ecosystem's carbon value is not automatically a carbon credit.   Can seaweed farming create a new income stream for coastal communities?Seaweed is emerging as one of the most visible livelihood opportunities in India’s blue-economy push. The government identifies the country’s 11,099-km coastline as having significant potential for seaweed cultivation, while research institutions including ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-CSMCRI have identified 384 potential sites covering 24,707 hectares across coastal states and Union Territories. Government programmes are supporting activities such as rafts, monolines and tubenets, seed banks, hatcheries, training, research and market linkages. The Ministry of Earth Sciences has also identified seaweed farming, seed banks, tissue-culture laboratories, cluster farming, credit and insurance as potential areas for blue-economy investment. But potential is not the same as livelihood success. The stronger evidence would show how many people actually enter seaweed farming, how many continue beyond the first year, what farmers earn, who buys the harvest and how stable those prices are. It should also establish who owns the cultivation infrastructure and what happens when storms, disease or other environmental shocks damage a crop. Training women is only the first step. The real test is whether they stay involved, earn an income and have a say in how that income is used. Could mariculture reduce pressure on wild fisheries - or create new environmental risks? Mariculture and aquaculture can expand seafood production while creating new livelihood opportunities. The government is promoting marine fish farming alongside seaweed cultivation. In February 2026, it said India was developing both activities as part of its blue-economy strategy, including pilot-scale seaweed-farming studies along the Andaman coast. India has also entered into cooperation with Israel on fisheries and aquaculture, with an emphasis on technology-driven and sustainable practices and improving coastal livelihoods. But expanding marine farming brings another set of questions. Where does the feed come from? What happens to the waste? Which species are being farmed? Does the activity affect water quality? How much coastal space does it occupy? And does it restrict access for existing fishing communities? A project cannot be considered sustainable simply because its output comes from the sea. The full production chain and the ecological footprint it leaves behind must be accounted for.What do India’s fisheries numbers tell us about the people behind the blue economy?India is already a global fisheries powerhouse.NITI Aayog’s 2025 blue-economy strategy describes India as the world’s second-largest fish-producing country, accounting for around 8% of global fish production and supporting nearly 30 million livelihoods. The government is also using the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) to strengthen fisheries infrastructure and fisher welfare. The scheme has an investment framework of more than ₹20,000 crore and includes measures such as insurance and livelihood support for fishing communities. But national production figures can conceal what is happening at the household level. More fish production does not automatically mean higher fisher incomes. Higher seafood exports do not automatically translate into higher household earnings. And a larger fisheries economy does not necessarily mean better access to credit, insurance or social protection. That is why production data needs to be paired with household-level evidence. The real measure of a blue-economy livelihood programme is not simply how much seafood or seaweed it produces. It is whether coastal households earn more stable incomes, gain greater economic security and remain able to depend on the ecosystems that sustain them. DON'T STOP AT THE NATIONAL RANKINGFISH PRODUCTION ↑ does not automatically mean FISHER INCOME ↑ So, measure: Production+Prices+Household income+Employment+Insurance/social protection+Market access   BLUE-ECONOMY OUTCOME More ocean value + stronger coastal livelihoodsWhy do Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal matter to India’s blue-economy transition?India’s coastline is not a single ecological or economic zone. Different states face different combinations of fisheries, industry, ports, agriculture, tourism, coastal settlements and climate risks.Gujarat, for instance, combines major fisheries activity with extensive industrial and port infrastructure. Tamil Nadu has a large network of fishing communities alongside fisheries, aquaculture and dense coastal settlements. Odisha brings together vulnerable coastal ecosystems, fisheries, agriculture and industrial development. West Bengal presents a particularly distinctive case through the Sundarbans, where mangroves, fishing, agriculture and climate vulnerability intersect. That makes state-level implementation critical. A restoration or livelihood model that works in one coastal region may not deliver the same results elsewhere. Ecological conditions, community dependence, land-use patterns and economic opportunities can vary significantly from one coastline to another. The government’s blue-economy strategy itself identifies coastal states including Gujarat, Odisha and Tamil Nadu in discussions around fisheries development. The evidence should therefore move beyond national targets and examine what is actually happening in each coastal region - whether ecosystems are recovering, livelihoods are improving and communities are benefiting from the transition.   Can corporate investment protect the coast while delivering measurable returns? The blue economy is also opening a larger role for private capital. Companies connected to steel, infrastructure, mining, ports, agriculture and exports often have direct or indirect links with coastal ecosystems and communities. Their investments could support mangrove restoration, livelihood diversification, research, coastal resilience and more sustainable supply chains. But private investment needs the same level of scrutiny as public spending. A large corporate commitment does not mean the money has actually reached the ground. A CSR allocation does not automatically translate into an outcome. And hectares covered by a restoration programme do not tell us how many hectares actually survived. The evidence test should therefore follow the money from announcement to outcome: What was announced? What was budgeted? What was actually released? How much was spent? What was completed? Who benefited? And what continued after the funding cycle ended? The government’s PMMSY reporting offers a useful benchmark by distinguishing between funds approved and released and reporting both physical and financial progress. Private blue-economy projects should be held to the same standard. If the investment cannot be traced from the announced commitment to actual spending and measurable results, its sustainability value remains difficult to establish. Can India’s blue economy grow without pushing coastal communities aside?This is ultimately the social test of India’s blue-economy transition. Coastal communities are not simply beneficiaries waiting to receive the benefits of conservation or development projects. They already live and work within these ecosystems. Their livelihoods are closely tied to coastal waters, natural resources and the health of the ecosystems around them. That means community participation cannot be added at the end of a project. It has to be built into the design from the beginning. If mangrove restoration restricts access to fishing grounds without meaningful consultation or alternative livelihood support, an environmental intervention can create a real economic cost. If a blue-carbon project generates tradable credits while local communities receive little of the resulting revenue, a new carbon market could reproduce existing inequalities rather than correct them. A credible blue-economy model therefore needs transparent consent, tenure, access and benefit-sharing arrangements. It also needs grievance mechanisms that communities can actually access and use. Most importantly, the people affected by these projects should have a voice in measuring whether they worked. A sustainability claim should not rely entirely on project reports or management data. The strongest proof is on the ground: healthier ecosystems, stronger livelihoods and benefits reaching the communities that depend on them. What should India measure before calling a blue-economy project successful? THE BLUE-ECONOMY SCORECARD  Evidence testWhat to measureEcologyBaseline + habitat condition + survivalBlue carbonCarbon stock + methodology + permanenceLivelihoodsBeneficiary number + income changeWomenParticipation + income control + retentionFisheriesProduction + household income + market accessSeaweedFarmers retained + yield + actual earningsCommunity rightsConsent + tenure + access + benefit sharingCarbon creditsVerified credits + audit trailInvestmentBudget/capex + actual expenditureImplementationAnnounced vs operationalMonitoringMulti-year ecological + livelihood outcomesReportingBaseline + boundary + absolute/intensity results This changes the conversation. Instead of asking how much India is investing in the blue economy, it should ask what that investment is actually achieving. So, can the ocean become India’s next sustainability frontier?India’s coastline presents an enormous opportunity to build an economy around healthy ecosystems, resilient communities and sustainable use of marine resources. Mangroves can protect vulnerable coastlines while storing carbon. Seaweed can open new livelihood opportunities. Responsible aquaculture can expand seafood production. Fisheries can remain a major source of employment and income. And blue-economy investment can create new markets around conservation, restoration and ocean-based resources. But the transition comes with a crucial warning: India’s coastline cannot become the next sustainability frontier simply because it offers new carbon assets, investment opportunities and emerging markets. The people who already live and work along the coast must remain at the centre of the transition. The numbers alone do not tell the full story. Hectares restored, carbon stored and fish produced are only part of the picture.The real test is whether these efforts improved local incomes, protected access to resources, gave communities a meaningful say in decisions, shared benefits fairly and helped ecosystems remain healthy over time. Blue carbon must be measurable before it is monetised. Coastal livelihoods must be protected before they are transformed. And corporate investment must ultimately be judged not by the size of the announcement, but by the money that reaches the ground, the people who benefit and the outcomes that continue after the funding ends. Because India’s blue economy will be truly sustainable only when the value created by the ocean does not come at the cost of the people and ecosystems that depend on it. THE REAL BLUE-ECONOMY TESTProtect the ecosystem.Measure the carbon.Create viable livelihoods.Share the benefits.Track the outcome.Keep it working after the funding ends.Because India's next sustainability frontier cannot simply be blue. It has to be measurable, equitable and capable of surviving beyond the project cycle. Sources: Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India — Deep Ocean Mission [Source]Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India — Blue Economy Initiative [Source]Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India — Blue Economy Policy [Source]Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change — Blue Carbon Ecosystems (Seagrass and Mangroves) of India [Source]Department of Fisheries, Government of India — Strategy for the Seaweed Development [Source]Department of Fisheries, Government of India — Seaweed Culture in India [Source]Department of Fisheries, Government of India — Seaweed Cultivation [Source]Department of Fisheries, Government of India — Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) [Source]PMMSY — Climate-Resilient Coastal Fishing Villages [Source]PMMSY — Artificial Reefs and Coastal Fisheries Conservation [Source]  ...Read more

24 Aug 2026

Kolkata |24 August, 2026  India’s telemedicine network is bringing specialist care closer to rural patients, but the real challenge is ensuring that a consultation leads to care that is complete, affordable and continuous. SummaryFor rural patients, seeing a specialist can mean a long journey, lost wages and repeated visits to a distant hospital. India’s telemedicine network is changing that equation by bringing specialist expertise closer to rural communities, while corporate partnerships are adding diagnostics, technology, mobile healthcare and specialist access to the mix. But a teleconsultation is only one part of the care journey. The real test is whether patients are diagnosed, treated and followed up without having to bear the same travel and financial burden. For CSR programmes, success also depends on whether public health facilities are strengthened, outcomes are measured against a clear baseline, money is actually spent as reported and systems continue functioning after corporate funding ends. KeywordsPhygital Healthcare, Rural Telemedicine, Digital Health India, eSanjeevani, Healthcare Access, Rural Healthcare, Primary Health Centres, Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, Digital Health Infrastructure, Teleconsultation, Diagnostics, Continuity of Care   Can a PHC become the gateway to a specialist hundreds of kilometres away? For many rural patients, the challenge is not simply finding healthcare. But is reaching the right doctor without travelling hundreds of kilometres, losing a day’s wages or making repeated trips to a distant hospital. India continues to face shortages and an uneven distribution of health professionals, particularly in rural and underserved areas, making specialist access a bigger challenge than simply counting the number of doctors available. Telemedicine can help change this equation by bringing specialist expertise closer to patients instead of requiring them to travel long distances for every consultation. India’s eSanjeevani platform has demonstrated the scale of this approach by connecting patients and health workers with doctors and specialists, including in rural and remote communities.But phygital healthcare cannot depend on a screen alone.The physical Primary Health Centre remains an important part of the care journey. A nurse or community health worker can examine the patient, record vital signs, conduct basic diagnostic tests, explain the specialist’s advice and help ensure that medicines, referrals and follow-up care are available. The technology can bring the specialist closer. But it is the local health system that turns a remote consultation into actual care. PHYGITAL CARE JOURNEY Village patient → Local PHC → Physical examination → Point-of-care diagnostics → Remote specialist → Treatment → Follow-up The screen connects the specialist. The PHC completes the care journey. What happens when telemedicine meets diagnostics? A specialist cannot always make a reliable diagnosis through a conversation alone. Basic diagnostic tests can provide the information needed to understand a patient’s condition and decide what treatment or referral is required. A blood-sugar or blood-pressure reading, pregnancy test, haemoglobin level or another point-of-care test can significantly change what happens after a teleconsultation. This makes diagnostics an important part of the phygital healthcare model, where digital specialist access is combined with physical healthcare services at the local level. NITI Aayog’s work across Aspirational Districts and Blocks includes healthcare interventions that bring together community outreach, frontline health workers, diagnostics and digital monitoring. The broader lesson is clear: technology works best when it is connected to the basic healthcare infrastructure patients can access locally. That means a teleconsultation should not end with a video call. It should connect to examination, diagnosis, medicines, referrals and follow-up care.Otherwise, a programme may be able to report thousands of consultations while leaving the more important question unanswered: Did those consultations actually lead to better care for patients? THE SCREEN IS ONLY ONE PART REMOTE SPECIALIST↓DIGITAL PLATFORM↓PHC / HEALTH WORKER↓DIAGNOSTICS + PHYSICAL EXAMINATION↓MEDICINES + REFERRAL↓FOLLOW-UP Technology connects the patient to expertise. Infrastructure turns that expertise into care. Can corporate partnerships strengthen the public health system? This is where corporate participation can become more than a funding exercise. Companies can bring technology, specialist networks, diagnostics, equipment, training and logistics that may help extend healthcare to communities that public facilities struggle to reach on their own.There are already examples of different approaches. Tata Trusts has worked with state governments on telehealth and mobile healthcare initiatives aimed at connecting underserved communities with doctors and specialist services. Apollo’s remote healthcare network offers another hybrid model. Its 2024–25 ESG report states that the network has delivered more than 16.5 million teleconsultations across 95 specialties, combining digital consultations with physical healthcare services. Meanwhile, Smile Foundation’s Smile on Wheels takes doctors, nurses, laboratory services and medicines directly to villages and other hard-to-reach communities through mobile medical units.These models also raise a bigger question for CSR: Should companies create separate healthcare systems of their own, or use their resources to strengthen the government facilities already serving these communities? The second approach could offer greater long-term value. Instead of creating parallel systems that may struggle to continue once funding ends, corporate partners can support existing PHCs with digital infrastructure, diagnostic equipment, specialist access, staff training and logistics, while keeping the public health system at the centre of care. The goal should not simply be to bring corporate healthcare to rural India. It should be to leave the rural healthcare system stronger than it was before the partnership began.WHO DOES WHAT? GOVERNMENT• PHCs• Health workers• Public health infrastructure• Referrals CORPORATES• Technology• Equipment• Diagnostics• Funding• Specialist networks NGOs / COMMUNITY GROUPS• Outreach• Awareness• Inclusion• Local access PATIENTS / COMMUNITIES• Care-seeking• Treatment• Follow-up• Feedback Can preventive healthcare produce a measurable social return? For CSR programmes, the focus needs to move beyond how many services were delivered to what actually changed for patients. Screening 10,000 people is an activity. Identifying patients with hypertension or diabetes, ensuring they begin treatment and helping them complete follow-up is an outcome. This distinction is particularly important when companies use technology to expand preventive healthcare. J-PAL South Asia has evaluated preventive-health interventions in India, including research on demand for hypertension screening and the impact of health camps on preventive-care investment. Its research also highlights an important limitation: technology and better monitoring systems do not automatically lead to better healthcare delivery. In Karnataka, for example, a biometric system successfully tracked the attendance of doctors at Primary Health Centres, but it did not improve attendance because the government struggled to enforce the incentives and penalties linked to the system.The lesson is relevant for corporate healthcare programmes too.A better dashboard does not automatically mean better healthcare.What matters is whether patients are being diagnosed earlier, starting treatment, completing follow-up and ultimately experiencing better health outcomes. The real measure of CSR is not the number of beneficiaries on a report, but the difference the programme makes to their lives. ACTIVITY VS OUTCOME 10,000 people reached↓7,500 screened↓2,100 diagnosed / referred↓1,600 started treatment↓1,200 completed follow-up Measure the care journey, not just the first contact. What do rural workers and migrant families need from these systems? Rural healthcare cannot be separated from the realities of work and income. For many people, accessing specialist care can mean more than a long journey. It can mean lost wages, travel costs, childcare difficulties and time away from work. A worker who has to travel to another town for a specialist consultation may lose a day’s earnings. Migrant workers may face additional barriers when their workplace and place of residence keep changing. Women may delay seeking medical care when travel, childcare responsibilities or the cost of treatment become difficult to manage. The Aajeevika Bureau’s work with migrant workers highlights how informal workers can face gaps in healthcare and social-security access, particularly when migration, low incomes and hazardous working conditions overlap. SEWA Bharat has similarly worked to improve women’s access to healthcare and social-security entitlements through community-based approaches. These experiences point to a simple principle:Healthcare technology should fit into people’s lives, rather than expect people to reorganise their lives around technology.That means rural healthcare systems also need to consider accessibility, language, affordability, mobility and physical access. These are particularly important for persons with disabilities, older people and workers who cannot easily travel. What should companies actually measure? This is where the evidence test becomes critical.Companies should report the full number of people covered, rather than using a single “beneficiaries reached” figure.If 10,000 people were enrolled, how many completed screening? How many were diagnosed? How many started treatments? And how many completed follow-ups? The baseline should be equally clear. If a programme claims that it reduced patients’ travel costs, companies should show what patients were spending before the intervention. If it claims to have improved access to specialist care, it should show how far patients previously had to travel and how that changed.The same applies to consultations. Reporting one lakh consultations does not show how many patients actually received the treatment, medicines or referrals they needed. Money also needs to be accounted for.How much was budgeted? How much was actually spent? How much went towards equipment, technology, staffing, diagnostics, training and maintenance? Companies should also report cost per outcome, rather than stopping at cost per consultation. For example, they could track the cost per completed treatment, cost per successfully screened patient or number of patients served per 1,000 people in the target population. Both absolute and intensity measures can provide a clearer picture. Absolute numbers show the scale of a programme, while intensity measures help show how efficiently resources are being used. Most importantly, the reporting boundary must remain clear.A consultation is not automatically a treated patient. A screening is not automatically a diagnosis. And a person reached by a programme cannot automatically be counted as someone whose health improved. The real evidence lies in what happened after the healthcare service was delivered. THE CORPORATE HEALTHCARE EVIDENCE SCORECARD MeasureWhat to askBeneficiary denominatorHow many people were actually covered?CompletionHow many completed screening, treatment or follow-up?OutcomeWhat changed for patients?BaselineWhat was the situation before the programme?CostHow much was actually spent?Cost per outcomeWhat did each successful outcome cost?IntensityWhat was achieved per 1,000 people or per ₹1 lakh?ContinuityWhat continued after CSR funding ended? Measure outcomes, not just activities. What happens when the CSR funding ends? This may be the most important test of any corporate healthcare partnership. A company can install telemedicine equipment, bring specialists into the system and fund diagnostics for three years. But rural healthcare needs to function long after a CSR funding cycle ends. If a programme cannot continue without corporate support, its long-term impact remains limited. So, who maintains the equipment once the funding ends? Who pays for internet connectivity? Who trains new health workers when trained staff leave? Who ensures medicines and diagnostic supplies remain available? Who manages patient referrals and follow-up? And who is responsible for the infrastructure and patient data? ESIC’s teleconsultation model offers a useful public-sector example. Its hub-and-spoke approach connects dispensaries with hospitals that act as specialist hubs, helping reduce patient travel while keeping local doctors involved in treatment and follow-up.The broader lesson is clear:Telemedicine creates lasting value when it becomes part of the regular healthcare system - not when it remains a temporary CSR project. For companies, that means the success of a partnership should be judged not only by what it delivers during the funding period, but also by what the health system is still able to deliver after the funding ends. WHAT SURVIVES AFTER CSR? DURING CSR FUNDING• Equipment purchased• Specialists connected• Staff trained• Patients reached ↓ FUNDING ENDS WHAT REMAINS?• Equipment maintained?• PHC staff still trained?• Specialist network still available?• Diagnostics still functioning?• Connectivity still paid for?• Patient follow-up still happening? CONTINUITY = REAL SYSTEM STRENGTH So, can corporate partnerships really bridge India’s rural specialist-care gap? Yes - but only if corporate healthcare moves beyond delivering services and starts strengthening the system that delivers them. India already has a network of Primary Health Centres, frontline health workers, digital platforms and an expanding telemedicine system. Corporate partnerships can add what many rural facilities struggle to access: specialists, diagnostics, technology, training, logistics and investment. But the real value of these partnerships will not be measured by how many teleconsultations were delivered or how many devices were installed. Nor should success be defined by the size of a CSR announcement.The stronger model is one in which corporate support makes the existing public health system more capable, more accessible and more sustainable. That means the evidence test has to go much further:Who was actually reached? Who completed care? How many patients received the treatment or referral they needed? What changed compared with the baseline? How much did patients save in travel, time or lost wages? What did the PHC gain? What did each successful outcome cost? And, most importantly, what continued after the corporate funding ended? These questions determine whether phygital healthcare is creating a lasting healthcare solution or simply another successful CSR activity on paper. For rural patients, however, the measure of success is much simpler.It means not having to travel hundreds of kilometres just to see the right specialist. It means being able to get basic diagnostics close to home, receive treatment without unnecessary delays and know that follow-up care will still be available.That is the real promise of phygital healthcare: bringing specialist expertise closer without leaving rural patients dependent on a screen - or on a company’s funding. The real CSR test is not whether a company can bring a doctor to a village once. It is whether its partnership can help build a rural healthcare system that continues to deliver care long after the company steps away. THE REAL TEST ACCESSCan patients reach specialist care?→ OUTCOMEDid their health actually improve?→ VALUEWas the intervention worth the cost?→ CONTINUITYDid the system survive after CSR funding? A consultation is an activity.Completed, affordable and continuous care is the outcome. The promise of phygital healthcare is not to replace the rural doctor with a screen. It is to bring specialist expertise, diagnostics and continuity of care closer to patients through the health system already in place. And ultimately, the strongest corporate partnership will not be the one that creates the biggest programme. It will be the one that leaves the rural health system more accessible, more capable and more sustainable - and less dependent on the corporate partner than it was before. Sources: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare — eSanjeevani National Telemedicine Service SourceMinistry of Health & Family Welfare — Telemedicine Services Guidelines SourceNational Health Authority — Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) SourceNational Health Authority — ABDM and Telemedicine FAQs SourceMinistry of Health & Family Welfare — Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, diagnostics and teleconsultation SourceMinistry of Health & Family Welfare — Annual Report 2024–25: eSanjeevani and digital health SourceMinistry of Health & Family Welfare / ABDM — eSanjeevani’s scale and assisted teleconsultation model Source Press Information Bureau — eSanjeevani integration with ABDM and continuity of care Source ...Read more

21 Aug 2026

Kolkata | 21 August, 2026  As extreme heat reshapes Indian cities, delivery riders, construction workers and street vendors are being asked to keep working through conditions that can threaten both health and income. The real test is whether Heat Action Plans and corporate commitments can protect workers without making them pay the cost of adaptation. SummaryExtreme heat is becoming a workplace issue as much as a weather emergency. India now has Heat Action Plans across 23 states, 195 districts and 64 cities, while the National Disaster Management Authority has specifically advised cities to include street vendors and other informal workers through shaded vending areas, hydration facilities, cooling centres and flexible working hours. Yet the people most exposed to heat are often those who cannot simply stop working. Delivery riders lose income when they take breaks, construction workers spend hours outdoors, and street vendors depend on remaining at their locations through the hottest parts of the day. A 2026 nationwide advisory from the Ministry of Labour and Employment has urged employers and construction companies to provide drinking water, rest areas and cooling measures. Meanwhile, a proposed parametric-insurance pilot for delivery workers in Delhi-NCR is testing whether heat-triggered payouts can protect income when workers reduce labour during extreme temperatures. The larger question is whether India's heat-response system can move from warnings and advisories to enforceable protection for the workforce that keeps cities moving. Keywordsextreme heat in India, outdoor workers India, heat stress workers, heatwave workers India, workers and extreme heat, Heat Action Plans India, heat safety at workplace, worker protection from heat, heatwave labour protection, delivery riders heat, construction workers heat, street vendors heat, informal workers India, heat and labour rights, heat stress at workplace, worker income protection, climate adaptation workers, heat insurance India, parametric insurance workers, heatwave income protection, cooling centres India, workplace cooling, CSR and climate adaptation, CSR worker protection, corporate heat safety, climate resilience India, urban heat India, extreme heat and livelihoods, heat action plans and workers, labour protection climate change   Who Bears the Cost of Extreme Heat? For many city residents, extreme heat may mean discomfort or changes in their daily routine. For outdoor workers, however, cutting back on work because of the heat can directly affect their earnings. A delivery rider who delays an order may lose part of the day’s income. A street vendor who closes their stall may lose an entire day’s earnings. A construction worker may take longer breaks to cope with the heat, yet still be expected to meet daily targets.The choice is rarely simple. For many outdoor workers, protecting themselves from extreme heat can also mean risking their livelihood. India’s Heat Action Plans gradually recognise this vulnerability. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) framework calls for early warnings, health preparedness and targeted protection for vulnerable groups. Recent government guidance has also identified informal workers and recommended measures such as shaded vending areas, drinking-water facilities, cooling centres and flexible working hours. The framework is in place. But the real question is whether these protections reach workers on the ground, where they face the greatest heat exposure.  Is a Heat Action Plan Enough to Protect Workers?  India’s heat-response system has expanded significantly. As of 2026, Heat Action Plans have been prepared across 23 states, 195 districts and 64 cities. These plans are intended to establish when authorities should act, identify vulnerable populations and assign responsibilities across government departments.But a plan on paper does not necessarily translate into action on the ground. CEEW’s 2026 analysis has highlighted that many urban local bodies still lack Heat Action Plans tailored to local conditions. It recommends city-specific heat thresholds, ward-level risk assessments, clearly assigned responsibilities and stronger monitoring. Heat warnings may cover an entire city, but the risks are not the same everywhere. A construction site, delivery depot and street market can expose workers to different levels of heat. The real test, therefore, is not simply whether a city has a Heat Action Plan. But it is whether that plan changes working conditions when temperatures cross dangerous levels.  What Does Extreme Heat Mean for the People Who Keep Cities Running? Heat exposure is not distributed equally across a city. An office worker may be able to respond to a heat warning by staying indoors. A delivery rider still has to travel through traffic. A construction worker cannot move a building site into the shade. A street vendor cannot simply walk away from the heat when leaving the market or roadside stall could mean losing the day’s income. The danger is not determined by temperature alone. Long hours of exposure, combined with humidity, direct sunlight, physical exertion and inadequate rest, can increase the risk of heat-related illness. Warmer nights add another layer of problem. When temperatures remain high after sunset, workers get less time to recover before another physically demanding day begins. CEEW’s recent analysis has also highlighted the growing role of humidity and warmer nights in India’s heat risk. Protecting workers from extreme heat requires more than monitoring the temperature at midday. It also means considering how long they work, how physically demanding the work is, whether they get enough breaks and water, and whether they have enough time to recover between shifts. Can Employers Be Held Accountable for Heat Safety?  Government measures are placing greater responsibility on employers to protect workers from extreme heat. In April 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued a nationwide advisory asking states to direct employers, industries and construction companies to take measures to protect workers during heatwaves. These included drinking water, rest areas and workplace cooling, with particular attention to construction workers, brick-kiln workers, daily-wage earners and casual labourers.The advisory also called on ESIC facilities and labour-welfare authorities to establish support mechanisms for heatstroke cases and maintain supplies such as ORS and ice packs. But an advisory alone does not answer a crucial workplace question:What happens when heat protection comes into conflict with productivity targets? A delivery platform may expect riders to complete a certain number of orders. A construction contractor may have a fixed daily target. In such situations, simply recommending more breaks may not protect workers if taking those breaks means losing wages, incentives or facing penalties. That makes employer responsibility closely linked to income protection. A heat-safety measure works only when workers can actually use it without being financially punished for doing so. Could Changing Work Hours Make Outdoor Work Safer? One of the simplest ways to reduce heat exposure is also one of the hardest to implement: changing when people work. NDMA guidance has recommended flexible working hours and other measures for outdoor workers during heatwaves. Earlier heatwave guidelines have also supported rescheduling working hours and providing drinking-water points and shaded areas. For construction workers, this could mean moving physically demanding tasks away from the hottest part of the day. For delivery workers, it could mean reducing pressure during peak-heat hours. For street vendors, it could involve shaded vending spaces and easy access to water and cooling facilities rather than simply advising workers to stay indoors.But changing working hours can also reduce earnings. If a worker is paid according to hours worked or deliveries completed, reducing heat exposure without compensating for lost income can simply shift the financial cost of climate adaptation from the employer to the worker.That is why heat adaptation is not only a public-health issue. It is also a labour and income-protection issue. Can Cooling Centres Reach the Workers Who Need Them? Cooling centres are becoming part of heat-response planning, but their usefulness depends on whether workers can actually access them during the working day. A delivery rider may not be able to leave a delivery route for 30 minutes. A street vendor may not be able to leave a stall unattended. A construction worker may be working far from any public cooling facility.This means cooling infrastructure should be planned around where workers live, work and move, rather than simply measured by the number of centres established. In some locations, shaded bus stops, drinking-water points, rest areas, shaded markets, construction-site cooling zones and accessible public facilities may provide more practical protection than a small number of centralised cooling centres. The more useful measure, therefore, is not simply how many cooling facilities exist, but how many vulnerable workers can actually access them when they need them. Can Heat Insurance Protect Workers’ Income? Another emerging approach is parametric insurance, which can provide a predetermined payout when specific temperature thresholds are reached.J-PAL South Asia is studying a proposed pilot for outdoor delivery workers in Delhi-NCR. Under the model, payouts would be triggered when temperatures cross defined thresholds, helping workers reduce their exposure to extreme heat without losing as much income. The research also proposes examining the effects on worker health, labour supply and platform businesses. The idea is important because it addresses a basic problem: workers should not have to choose between protecting their health and earning their income during extreme heat.But any such model needs to be tested carefully. How many workers are covered? How often are payouts triggered? How much does each worker receive? Does the payment actually compensate for lost income? And does it help reduce heat exposure?The timing of the support matters too. A payout that arrives only after a worker has already suffered serious health consequences cannot be considered an adequate heat-protection system. What should companies actually measure? THE HEAT-PROTECTION EVIDENCE TEST  Workers Exposed↓Heat Threshold Crossed↓Protection Activated↓Break / Shift Adjustment↓Income Protected↓Health & Grievance Outcome↓Protection Continues Beyond the Heatwave  Companies need to look beyond the number of worksites covered and report how many workers are actually protected.They should track whether heat-related measures affect workers’ wages, job retention, access to benefits and ability to raise complaints. Worker feedback should also be collected independently, without management present, so employees can speak honestly about whether they were allowed to take breaks, whether supervisors followed heat-safety measures and whether taking precautions affected their earnings. Transparency also matters in reporting. If a company protects its permanent employees but leaves contract workers outside its heat-safety measures, that gap should be clearly reported. The same scrutiny should apply to CSR spending. How much was promised? How much was actually spent? Where did the money go? And did it fund cooling infrastructure, worker support, insurance, training or other forms of protection?Most importantly, did these interventions actually reduce workers’ exposure to extreme heat, or did they simply add more activities and numbers to a CSR report?The responsibility for protecting workers cannot rest with one department alone. Municipal corporations manage much of the response in public spaces. Disaster-management authorities coordinate heat preparedness. Health departments respond to heat-related illness. Labour authorities oversee workplace protections. Employers determine working conditions, while delivery platforms can influence schedules, workloads and incentives. Workers experience the combined impact of all these decisions.That is why Heat Action Plans need clear responsibilities that extend beyond issuing warnings. A city can issue a heat alert, but that warning must lead to action at construction sites, markets, delivery depots and on the streets.An employer can provide drinking water, but workers must also be able to take necessary breaks without putting their income at risk. A city can build cooling centres, but the workers most exposed to heat must be able to reach and use them. And a company can fund a heat-adaptation programme, but the money should result in measurable protection - not just a list of activities completed.  Who Protects the People Who Keep Our Cities Running?  India’s urban economy relies heavily on people who work outside offices, malls and air-conditioned buildings. They deliver food and medicines, build homes and roads, sell goods, transport materials and keep neighbourhoods running.As extreme heat becomes a more persistent threat, protecting this workforce cannot remain limited to seasonal warnings and awareness campaigns. The response needs to connect heat alerts with workplace protections, income security, accessible cooling spaces and clear employer accountability.For CSR programmes, success should not be measured by how many water bottles were distributed or how many awareness sessions were conducted. The more important question is whether workers were safer, able to protect their income, able to access essential benefits and able to raise concerns when protections failed. The workers most exposed to India’s rising heat are also among those keeping its cities running.The real test is whether India can turn heat warnings into meaningful protection for the workers who keep its cities moving.WHAT TO CHECK BEFORE CALLING A HEAT CSR PROGRAMME A SUCCESS  MeasureWhat to askDenominatorHow many workers were actually covered?ExposureHow many workers face outdoor/heat-intensive work?IncomeDid workers lose wages when taking heat breaks?ProtectionWere water, shade, cooling and adjusted shifts actually available?BenefitsCould workers access medical/social-security support?GrievancesHow many complaints were raised and resolved?BaselineWhat was the situation before the intervention?OutcomeDid heat exposure or illness actually decline?SpendingWhat was budgeted versus actually spent?ContinuityDoes protection continue after CSR funding ends? Primary sources: NDMA — Guidelines for Preparation of Action Plan: Prevention and Management of Heat Wave (2019)Official national framework for Heat Action Plans, heat preparedness and response. NDMA Heat Wave GuidelinesNDMA — Heat Wave portalOfficial government guidance and heat-wave information. NDMA Heat WaveMinistry of Labour & Employment / PIB — Nationwide Heatwave Advisory (28 April 2026)This is the key primary source for your claims about employers, rescheduling working hours, drinking water, rest areas, workplace cooling, construction workers, daily-wage workers, ORS/ice packs and compliance monitoring. Ministry of Labour & Employment Heatwave Advisory, 2026CEEW — How We Build Scientific Heat Action Plans with Indian Cities (23 June 2026)Supports your points about locally calibrated HAPs, ward-level risk assessments, heat thresholds, outdoor workers, revised work schedules, rest-water-shade measures and monitoring/evaluation. CEEW: Scientific Heat Action PlansCEEW — How Extreme Heat is Impacting India: Assessing District-level Heat Risk (2025)Useful for the claims about humidity, warmer nights, heat risk and the limitations of existing HAPs. CEEW: Extreme Heat Risk in IndiaNDMA — National Guidelines for Cooling Centers (November 2025)This is the strongest primary source for the cooling-centre/infrastructure section. NDMA lists the guideline officially. NDMA: National Guidelines for Cooling CentersJ-PAL South Asia — Take-up and Impacts of Parametric Insurance for Labor Supply under Climate ChangeThis is the primary research source for your section on parametric heat insurance for outdoor delivery workers in Delhi-NCR, including predetermined temperature triggers and income protection. J-PAL: Parametric Insurance for Outdoor Delivery Workers ...Read more

20 Aug 2026

Kolkata | 20 August, 2026  Every day, millions of flowers are offered at India’s temples. Once the prayer is over, however, those flowers become part of a growing waste-management challenge. Across pilgrimage towns, municipalities, temple trusts, women’s self-help groups and private enterprises are trying to give them a second life - as incense, natural colours, compost, flower powder and other products. The bigger opportunity is not simply to prevent flowers from reaching rivers. It is to build a system where ritual waste creates reliable rural livelihoods, supports women and waste workers, and can prove every environmental claim it makes. SummaryTemple flowers can become more than biodegradable waste. They can become products, income and a reason to strengthen local circular economies. But a credible model must answer difficult questions. How much waste was actually collected? Where would it have ended up without the intervention? How much was successfully converted into usable products? Where did the remaining material go? How much did the workers earn? What did the project cost? And, most importantly, can the claimed reduction in river pollution be supported with clear evidence? The future of India’s temple economy may depend less on how many flowers are collected and more on whether the entire chain can be measured and trusted. KeywordsTemple Flower Waste, Floral Waste Management, Circular Economy India, Temple Waste Recycling, Women Self-Help Groups, Sustainable Livelihoods, Circular Economy, Waste to Wealth, River Pollution, Environmental Impact, CSR, Sustainable Communities When Devotion Becomes a Waste-Management ChallengeFor a devotee, flowers are an offering made with faith and devotion. But for temples that receive thousands of visitors every day, those offerings eventually become a large and regular source of organic waste. The problem arises when floral waste is mixed with other garbage or dumped in drains, open spaces and water bodies. Although flowers are biodegradable, that does not make them harmless when large quantities are disposed of, without proper treatment. When floral waste enters water bodies in large amounts, it can increase organic pollution, reduce dissolved oxygen and put additional stress on aquatic ecosystems. The scale of the waste can be significant. At Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar Temple, which receives an estimated 75,000–100,000 visitors a day, around 5-6 tonnes of floral and other waste are generated daily. A processing plant with a reported capacity of three tonnes per day is part of the temple’s waste-management system, while women’s self-help groups also help turn collected floral waste into useful products. Tirupati offers another example. More than six tonnes of floral waste are reportedly handled every day, with around 150 women from self-help groups involved in recycling the material. These examples highlight an important reality: a major temple is not only a place of worship. It is also a large local ecosystem involving visitors, livelihoods, waste management and the environment. Temple floral-waste scale  Ujjain: 75,000–100,000 visitors/day | 5–6 tonnes floral + other waste/day | 3-tonne/day processing capacityTirupati: 6+ tonnes floral waste/day | 150 women involved in recyclingGulf of Mannar: 849 kg garland waste collected → 155 kg usable flower powder | 60 women involved Can Temple Flowers Become a Source of Livelihood?Floral waste is often discussed as an environmental problem, but it can also become an economic opportunity when it is collected, processed and reused properly. A model in the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve shows how this can work. Temples were used as collection points, with 15 collection drums installed across five temples, according to UNESCO. Between May and August 2025, around 849 kg of garland waste was collected and processed. After segregation and drying, 155 kg was converted into usable flower powder, while 60 women received training in processing, quality control, packaging, pricing and managing micro-enterprises. The numbers also show why waste processing cannot be measured simply by comparing what is collected with what is sold. 849 kg went into the process, while 155 kg became usable flower powder. That difference is expected. Flowers contain significant moisture, while temple offerings can also contain threads, plastic, synthetic decorations and other unwanted material. Some of the material is removed during sorting, while further losses can occur during drying and processing. Not all collected waste will necessarily be suitable for the final product. This is why credible circular-economy projects need a clear mass balance - tracking how much material enters the system, how much is recovered, how much is converted into products and how much ultimately remains as waste. Collected → segregated → processed → converted into product → sold/used → residual material → final destination. Without that chain, “X tonnes recycled” can hide what happened between collection and the final product.  Who Benefits When Temple Flowers Get a Second Life? The strongest potential of floral-waste circularity may lie in its ability to address waste while creating local livelihoods. Women’s self-help groups can take part in collection, segregation, drying, processing, packaging and sales. This can keep more of the economic value within pilgrimage centres and nearby communities, instead of sending the waste to a distant processing facility.But formalising the waste stream can also affect people who already depend on it for their livelihoods. Before a new floral-waste system is introduced, it is important to ask: Who was collecting, sorting or recovering value from this waste before the project began?Informal waste workers may already be earning an income from these activities. If a formal system replaces their work without including them, it could solve a waste-management problem while creating a new livelihood problem.A responsible circular-economy model should therefore examine whether informal workers are:included in the new system or offered alternative livelihoods;provided formal contracts or predictable payments; given appropriate protective equipment and training;included in decisions that affect their work;given opportunities to participate in higher-value stages of processing and sales; andactually, earning more or receiving a more stable income as a result.The same principle applies to women-led self-help groups. Saying that a project has “created 100 jobs” does not narrate the full story. It is important to know whether these are full-time or occasional jobs, how much workers are paid, who pays them and whether the income will continue after the pilot or CSR funding ends.A circular-economy project should create value not only from discarded flowers, but also for the people whose work keeps that system running.  VALUE-CHAIN FLOW   FLOWER OFFERED → TEMPLE COLLECTION → SEGREGATION → WOMEN/WASTE-WORKER NETWORK → PROCESSING → PRODUCT → MARKET → INCOMEWaste residue → documented destination  Can Temple Trusts Turn Faith-Based Giving into Environmental Action?India’s religious institutions already play a major role in supporting education, healthcare, food distribution, welfare and other community programmes. This gives temple trusts and endowment bodies an opportunity to extend that work into environmental management and circular-economy initiatives.Instead of leaving floral waste entirely to municipal systems, temple administrations could invest in the infrastructure needed to manage it properly, including: separate collection points;storage and transportation systems;processing equipment and facilities;training and protective equipment for workers;support for women-led enterprises;market development for products made from floral waste; andregular monitoring and independent audits. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, for instance, already operates several social-service and charitable programmes through dedicated trusts and institutional structures. This established model of organised giving could be expanded to support environmental stewardship, responsible waste management and sustainable livelihood opportunities for local communities. But funding a circular-economy project is only the beginning. Temple trusts should also be able to demonstrate how that money is being used and what it is achieving. Capital expenditure, operating costs, worker payments, equipment purchases and actual programme spending should be clearly documented. A large budget announcement does not necessarily mean the money has been spent. A large processing facility does not automatically mean the system is functioning. And a finished product on a shelf does not prove that the wider floral-waste stream is being managed responsibly. The real measure of a temple’s circular-economy investment is not how much it announces or builds, but how effectively it turns waste into environmental and social value. Can Private Companies Help Take Temple-Waste Circularity to Scale?Taking temple floral-waste circularity to a larger scale will likely require more than temple trusts and municipal bodies. Private companies can bring the technology, logistics, packaging, market access, training and investment needed to build a more efficient system. Different industries can contribute in different ways. FMCG companies could support product development and distribution, while packaging companies could help create lower-impact packaging for products made from floral waste. Recyclers and producer-responsibility organisations could bring expertise in collection, traceability and material management. Companies in sectors such as automobiles, electronics and batteries could also support floral-waste initiatives through CSR funding, livelihood programmes and wider circular-economy partnerships. Businesses involved in repair and reuse can bring another useful lesson: materials retain greater value when they are kept in productive use instead of being discarded. But corporate participation should not turn floral-waste management into another branding exercise.If a company supports such a project through CSR, there should be clear answers to basic questions: How much money was committed? How much was actually spent? What was built? Who benefited? What results were achieved? And what continued after the funding ended? That transparency is what separates a CSR announcement from a functioning programme that delivers lasting environmental and social impact. Who Is Responsible for Making Temple-Waste Management Work?Temple floral waste does not exist separately from the wider urban waste-management system. In pilgrimage towns, municipal corporations are responsible for local waste collection, sanitation and supporting infrastructure. That makes coordination with temple administrations essential. Running two separate waste systems in the same town can create gaps, duplication and confusion over responsibility. The regulatory framework is equally important. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards play a role in pollution monitoring and environmental compliance, while the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) provides the broader policy framework. BIS may be relevant where standards apply to particular products or processes, while the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has a role in addressing misleading environmental claims. This becomes especially important as circular-economy projects use environmental benefits as part of their public messaging. India’s 2024 Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims require environmental claims to be truthful, clear and supported by evidence. Floral-waste projects should meet the same standard. If a project claims to have “saved a river,” the crucial question is whether that claim can be supported by clear, verifiable evidence. Can a Floral-Waste Project Prove Its Environmental Impact?Collecting waste does not automatically tell us how much pollution has been prevented. Suppose a project collects 1,000 kg of flowers. It cannot simply claim that 1,000 kg of waste was diverted from a river. To make that claim, the project needs to establish where that waste would have gone without the intervention. Was it entering a river or other water body? Was it being sent to a landfill? Was it already being composted? Was it being collected separately?The environmental benefit depends on the answer. A credible project should therefore report at least four things: Waste collected: How much floral waste entered the programme?Waste diverted: How much was demonstrably prevented from its documented previous disposal route?Product output: How much was converted into a usable product?Residual waste: Where did the remaining material go? The scale of the project should also be taken into account. Reporting both absolute and intensity-based results can provide a clearer picture.For example: Absolute: 10 tonnes of floral waste diverted in one year. Intensity: 10 kg of floral waste diverted per 10,000 visitors. The second measure can make comparisons between temples of very different sizes more meaningful. Is the Final Product Really the Measure of Circularity?Not necessarily.It is easy to focus on the visible end products - incense sticks, soaps, colours, compost, paper or decorative items made from flowers. But these products represent only one part of the circular-economy process.The system begins with segregation and collection and ends only when the material, money and people involved can be accounted for.That means asking: Material: Where did the collected flowers go?Money: How much was spent and how much revenue was generated?People: Who did the work, who benefited and was anyone’s existing livelihood affected?Environment: What pollution or waste was actually avoided?Market: Were the products actually sold and used, or simply produced?Longevity: Did the model continue after the initial grant, CSR funding or pilot ended?Organisations working on waste management, informal labour and environmental justice - including groups such as Chintan, Toxics Link, Waste Ventures India and Goonj - can bring an important perspective here: a circular system should not only change where waste goes; it should also improve the conditions and opportunities of the people handling it. What Would a Truly Circular Temple-Waste System Look Like?A genuinely circular temple economy would begin before the flower becomes waste.Temples would have dedicated collection systems and ensure that plastic, thread and other contaminants do not enter the floral-waste stream. Municipalities would integrate these systems into local waste-management plans. Temple trusts could support infrastructure, worker training and livelihood development. Women’s self-help groups and existing waste workers could participate across the value chain, rather than being restricted to the lowest-paid collection work. Private companies could contribute technology, logistics, packaging and market access. NGOs and waste-sector organisations could help monitor worker safety, inclusion and environmental outcomes. Regulators could ensure that environmental claims are backed by evidence. The final test is straightforward: Can the project trace the flower from the moment it is offered to its final destination? If it can, that flower becomes more than waste. It can become a product, a source of income, an opportunity for local enterprise and a measurable part of pollution prevention.But if a project cannot show where the waste went, how much became a usable product, how much workers earned, what the system actually cost or how its environmental claims were calculated, then “circularity” risks becoming little more than a label.India does not have to choose between faith and sustainability. It can build systems where faith supports environmental stewardship, environmental action creates local livelihoods and every claimed impact is supported by credible evidence. A flower offered at a shrine should not have to end its journey in a polluted river.But making that journey truly circular requires more than collecting the flowers - it requires tracking their journey and proving what happens to them at every stage.   THE CIRCULARITY TEST” SCORECARD  What a project claimWhat readers should ask“X tonnes recycled”How much was actually collected, processed and converted?“River pollution avoided”Where would the waste have gone without the project?“Women employed”How many women, doing what work, for how much income?“Waste diverted”What was the baseline disposal route?“Circular product”Where did processing residues go?“₹X crore invested”How much was actually spent and on what?“Sustainable”What evidence supports the environmental claim? Before You Call It Circular, Follow the Flower.  “849 KG → 155 KG”Use the Gulf of Mannar case as a simple mass-balance graphic:849 KG GARLAND WASTE↓SEGREGATION + DRYING + PROCESSING↓155 KG USABLE FLOWER POWDER Side panel: 60 women involved15 collection drums5 templesMay - August 2025 “Collected material ≠ final product.”   EDITORIAL EVIDENCE BOX:  For every floral-waste project studied, the reporting checklist should be:  Collection recordsWeighing/mass-balance recordsProcessing capacity vs actual throughputFinal-product quantityResidual-material destinationBaseline disposal routePollution or environmental baselineWorker numbers and actual incomeWorker safety provisionsCSR/temple/municipal budget and actual expenditureSales/market evidenceAudit or certification trailClear reporting boundaryAbsolute and intensity results  Primary sources:  PIB / Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs — Floral Waste is boosting circularity in economy — Ujjain, Tirupati, temple trusts, SHGs, processing capacity and employment. PIB sourceUNESCO — Advancing Circular Economy and Inclusive Waste Management in the temples of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve — 5 temples, 15 collection drums, 849 kg collected/processed, 155 kg flower powder, 60 women and processing workflow. UNESCO sourcePIB — Flower Power: India’s Temple Waste Transformation — Ujjain, Siddhivinayak, Phool, HolyWaste and Aaruhi case studies. PIB featureSwachh Bharat Mission Urban — Petals to Profit — official government resource on temple floral-waste recycling and circular-economy models. Swachh Bharat Mission sourceCCPA — Guidelines/Guidance on Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing, 2024 — substantiation, verifiable evidence and accuracy of environmental claims. CCPA sourceTirumala Tirupati Devasthanams / Andhra Pradesh Endowments material — TTD funds, donations, offerings and permitted social/institutional uses of funds. TTD Endowment Act sourceUNESCO — Phool: A Story of Change — floral waste, river-pollution context, recycling into incense and employment of marginalised women. UNESCO / Phool sourceKolkata Municipal Corporation project — 2026 — temple flowers being collected for incense and herbal aabir, with an initial employment target for 15 women. The available report quotes a senior state municipal-affairs official, so I would treat this as reported municipal information, rather than an independently audited source. Kolkata floral-waste project report ...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. Keywords Bonded Labour, Forced Labour, Human Rights, ESG, Supply Chains, Human Rights Due Diligence, Responsible Sourcing, Migrant Workers, Labour Rights, Ethical Supply Chains, Corporate ESG, India ESG, Worker Welfare, Sustainable Business, Social Sustainability, Global Trade, EU Due Diligence, ESG Compliance, Responsible Procurement, India Labour 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

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.KeywordsDisability inclusion; workplace accessibility; ESG metrics; BRSR; reasonable accommodation; inclusive employment; digital accessibility; climate resilience; ESIC; labour codes; corporate governance.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

28 Jul 2026

A workshop in Kolkata has sparked a larger conversation about whether restoring ecosystems can also restore livelihoods, especially for communities that have protected nature for generations. Can restoring nature also restore livelihoods? As communities revive forests, wetlands and mangroves, a new conversation is emerging around climate action, employment and long-term resilience. The discussion gained momentum following a recent climate workshop in Kolkata, where experts, researchers, community leaders and environmental practitioners explored how community-led climate action can create meaningful jobs while restoring ecosystems. While the conversations began at the local level, the ideas resonate far beyond the city.As countries invest more in climate action, a bigger opportunity is beginning to emerge. Experts believe community-led restoration can not only revive ecosystems but also create inclusive, long-term livelihoods for the people who depend on them.But an equally important question remains.Can green jobs evolve into stable, long-term careers, or will they continue to depend on short-lived projects and temporary funding? Around the world, climate action is being backed by investments in restoring nature. Whether it involves bringing forests back to life, reviving wetlands, rejuvenating urban lakes or protecting vulnerable coastlines, these efforts require skilled hands and local knowledge. Experts argue that the communities protecting these ecosystems ought to be the primary beneficiaries of the opportunities they generate.For India, this conversation is especially significant. As the country works towards expanding forest cover, restoring degraded landscapes and building climate resilience, the need for a skilled green workforce is becoming important. Experts say achieving these ambitions will depend on professionals trained in ecological restoration, biodiversity monitoring, sustainable agriculture, waste management and other nature-based solutions.Yet the workshop made one point particularly clear- green jobs cannot succeed on numbers alone. Their future will depend on skilled training, reliable career pathways and valuing the traditional knowledge that communities have passed down for generations. This made traditional ecological knowledge one of the defining themes of the discussions. For centuries, communities living closest to nature have learned how to work with it. Across India, Indigenous groups, fisherfolk, farmers and forest-dependent households have built a deep understanding of forests, wetlands, mangroves, biodiversity and changing weather through lived experience. Experts believe this traditional knowledge should play a central role in shaping restoration efforts rather than simply supporting them.Several restoration initiatives have already demonstrated the value of community participation. From mangrove conservation along India's coastlines to watershed restoration in drought-prone regions and community-managed forests across different states, these efforts show that restoration is more likely to succeed when local people are involved in planning, implementation and long-term monitoring. But training people is only the beginning! The real challenge is ensuring that green skills open the door to credible, long-term careers rather than remaining part of short-lived training programmes. Experts say the real opportunity lies in creating skills that remain valuable long after individual restoration projects are completed. Whether it is nursery management, biodiversity surveys, GIS mapping, climate-risk assessment or environmental monitoring, specialised training can help build a workforce prepared for the demands of a greener economy.They also believe stronger collaboration between governments, educational institutions, businesses and civil society organisations will be key to improving certification, creating employment opportunities and supporting continuous learning. In this transition, the private sector is expected to emerge as an equally important partner. As sustainability becomes a bigger priority for businesses, the demand for professionals who understand ecological restoration, climate resilience and environmental reporting is expected to rise. Experts believe this could create meaningful career opportunities for young people while helping India build a greener and more resilient economy.One message echoed throughout the workshop: green jobs should be valued not just for the number of people they employ, but for the livelihoods they sustain. Fair wages, long-term income security, safe working conditions and genuine community participation will decide whether restoration efforts create lasting change or simply fade with project funding. Ultimately, the discussions in Kolkata pointed to a much larger truth- building a greener future does not require choosing between climate action and economic development. A greener future will require both to move forward as one.Every restored forest, wetland, river and coastline represents more than an environmental success- it is an investment in the future of both people and nature. The real task now is ensuring that the opportunities created are inclusive, credible and long-lasting. As countries invest more in climate solutions, the focus must shift from counting projects to creating lasting opportunities for the people leading them. Building a resilient economy will require communities to be recognised not just as participants, but as long-term partners in the journey. Because if restoring nature is about protecting tomorrow, it should also help secure the livelihoods of those shaping that future today!   Sources:International Labour Organization (ILO) – Green Jobs Programme   United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)   United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030)  Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India  Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE), Government of India  National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC)  Green Skill Development Programme (GSDP), MoEFCC   National Mission for Green India   National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)   Wildlife Institute of India (WII) ...Read more

12 May 2026

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have moved from being a department in HR to a core component of labor compliance and corporate strategy. In the past, diversity was often treated as a "numbers game"—meeting certain quotas for gender or ethnicity. Today, the focus is on Systemic Equity, which examines the underlying structures of a company to ensure that all individuals have the same access to opportunities, regardless of their background, neurodiversity, or physical ability. The innovation in this space is the move toward Data-Driven Inclusion Audits. Instead of general surveys, companies are using AI to analyze promotion rates, pay gaps, and "Attrition Velocity" across different demographics. If the data shows that a specific group is leaving the company at twice the average rate, it signals a failure in the social environment that needs immediate intervention. This proactive compliance model helps identify "Micro-exclusions"—subtle, systemic barriers that prevent talented individuals from reaching leadership positions. Community engagement is the final pillar of this strategy. A truly compliant company in 2026 does not exist in a vacuum; it is an active participant in its local ecosystem. This means "Local Sourcing" for labor and services, investing in local education through STEM programs, and ensuring that the company’s presence does not lead to gentrification or displacement. By integrating the company into the social fabric of its community, businesses create a "Mutual Value Exchange." This not only boosts the company’s reputation but also creates a stable, skilled local labor pool, ensuring that social and labor compliance is not just an ethical duty, but a powerful engine for regional economic growth. ...Read more