From Geography
to Global Resilience
Why do some endeavors struggle to take root despite meticulous planning and noble intent, while others flourish against all expectations? The answer often lies not in grand strategy, but in the unseen threads of human connection and understanding. Ariba Naaz, a professional deeply immersed in the world of sustainability, offers a perspective that doesn’t rely on corporate jargon and is devoted to finding core truths. Her journey, initially rooted in the abstract systems of geography and disaster management, reveals a consistent theme: the indispensable role of the human element in any genuine push for a more sustainable future. This is evident when examining the concept of ESG. Environmental, Social, and Governance. As Ariba declares, the "Social pillar often remains neglected,” losing the latent anchor determining the effectiveness of the entire structure.
Ariba's professional path began not with a direct pursuit of sustainability as it is often defined today, but through the lens of disaster management. She notes that sustainability was always a complementary subject alongside her studies in geography and disaster management. For her, the two fields are intrinsically linked, "different sides of the same coin". Disaster management focuses on building resilience and preparing for crises, while sustainability aims to prevent crises from occurring in the first place. This initial framework, where prevention and mitigation are two facets of the same objective, set the stage for her later understanding of sustainability’s broader implications.
The transition from academic theory to corporate application quickly illuminated a pragmatic reality. In the corporate sphere, "everything is about managing costs". This is not a dismissal of sustainability's purpose. It is a sensible recognition of the environment in which it operates. Even well-intended initiatives, Ariba explains, aim to create a system where "there are no incidents, so that that could harm the flow of work in our everyday life". This objective, viewed through a corporate lens, translates directly to cost minimization. The conceptual overlap between disaster management’s preparedness and sustainability’s prevention became apparent. Both ultimately seek to minimize disruptions and associated financial burdens.
"Sustainability and disaster management. They go hand in hand with prevention and mitigation. They are the same. They are different sides of the same coin."
The Imperative of
the Social Element
Ariba insists on a holistic view of ESG, yet readily identifies the social component as the most frequently overlooked. Companies often possess environmental policies and governance structures, but social responsibility, which directly impacts people, appears to remain an afterthought. She highlights a critical disconnect: "The implementation of policies and having the policies in place, … is very different in a lot of companies, especially here in India". Policies exist on paper, but they are often disregarded on the ground. This gap is not merely procedural. To her, the disconnect stems from a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of those at the top. The leaders who create these policies frequently "can't think about the workers or the problems they are facing in their everyday routine". This disengagement, Ariba asserts, is precisely why "the social aspect is missing".
The question arises: What tangible value does a corporate policy hold if it fails to address the lived realities of those it purports to protect or uplift? For Ariba, bridging this chasm requires shifting who shapes these directives. She argues that knowledge of the workforce must inform policy creation directly. A consultant with a genuine understanding of the workers should lead the policy-making process. This direct involvement would ensure practical relevance and streamline implementation, preventing policies from being "haphazard for not being followed, or being followed in a haphazard way". It implies that the social dimension is not a mere compliance checkbox but the bedrock upon which any effective and sustainable practice must be built. Without addressing the human reality, efforts in environmental stewardship or corporate governance risk becoming detached exercises with limited impact.
This systemic flaw in policy formulation often leads to significant inefficiencies. When the intent of a policy is divorced from the practicalities of its execution, resources are misallocated, and opportunities for genuine improvement are lost. An auditor, often tasked with verifying compliance, possesses a ground-level perspective. Ariba sees the auditor as a potential architect for future policies, not a simple verifier of past, historic actions. This role exceeds diagnosis. It requires active participation in updating systems, frameworks, and policies while in the field. She contends that an audit without a corrective component is "like a diagnosis without a prescription". By their direct observation of operational realities, the auditor is positioned to identify practical improvements that align policies with on-the-ground needs.
However, the challenge of implementation persists. Ariba acknowledges that companies often exhibit resistance even when recommendations are made, particularly in India's nascent sustainability landscape. They might accept a fraction of the suggestions, often deferring others to an undefined future. This pragmatic reality demands a recalibration of expectations for professionals entering the field.
"If the person is not making changes or updating the system, it's auditing. It will be like a diagnosis without a prescription."
"If they want to install solar panels, let's say, they just go ahead and do it."
Navigating
Pragmatism & Progress
This pragmatic reality demands a recalibration of expectations for professionals entering the field. Ariba recounts her initial assumptions. She believed companies would accommodate at least 50% of their recommendations. After auditing numerous companies, however, she adjusted this expectation. In terms of adopted recommendations, a 2 out of 10 success rate is an achievement. To her, this acceptance of incremental progress is crucial in India, where sustainability remains a newer concept than in other regions. She states that even if companies "consider 2 out of 10 of our points, it is something, it is not a total waste”.
This perspective implies a shift from idealistic goals to a grounded understanding of the pace of change. It requires an internal recalibration of success metrics. What sustains the engagement of a professional like Ariba when facing such initial resistance? The belief that each small step contributes to a larger, positive trajectory. Even a limited commitment signifies movement. It is a starting point from which future advancements take off. This view challenges the all-or-nothing approach often encountered in sustainability advocacy. Instead, it champions persistence through consistent wins, even small ones.
Ariba observes a distinct pattern among smaller companies in India. While large corporations may exhibit caution regarding sustainability expenditures, certain small businesses demonstrate an inherent commitment. This commitment often stems from a direct personal connection. In small towns, founders and CEOs frequently know their workers personally. These employees may represent generations who have worked for the same family business. This personal relationship fosters a genuine care for employee well-being and the local environment. Here, it is more than "chasing the ESG scores". It is about ensuring a safe working environment and preventing pollution in their and their workers' communities.
Such companies operate with less bureaucratic overhead. Decisions regarding sustainable practices, like installing solar panels, can be made directly. This contrasts sharply with larger organizations, where initiatives must navigate multiple departmental approvals. This agility allows small businesses to implement impactful changes with greater speed and conviction. They often mirror the effectiveness of much larger, resource-rich entities, raising questions about the scalability of human-driven sustainability.
The Systemic Scalability Challenge
The observation about smaller companies raises the question of scalability. If genuine, human-driven sustainability flourishes in more intimate settings, how does this translate nationally or globally? Ariba suggests that for a country like India, a model comprised of numerous smaller, locally connected entities might be more effective than large corporations. She highlights that many big companies "are stingy when it comes to expenditure" for suppliers or contractors. Smaller companies, conversely, are often "more willing to do the same". Why? They are more personal.
This preference for smaller models stems from their direct relationships and willingness to invest where it matters to the people. It questions the assumption that large-scale impact must originate from large-scale organizations. Could a multitude of interconnected, personally invested small businesses collectively achieve a greater, more sustainable impact than a few distant conglomerates? This shifts the focus from centralized control to distributed responsibility and local ownership. It recognizes that empathy and direct connection, attributes often more present in smaller operations, can be powerful drivers of sustainable practices.
Ariba clarifies the role of a sustainability professional within this context. The expectation is not for an ESG officer to "meddle in the HR's work, the factory floor manager's work, or the finance controllers' work." Instead, their function is to act as a "medium." They translate what sustainability means within each specific domain and illustrate how individual departments can contribute to broader sustainability goals. This involves aligning departmental functions, from Human Resources to factory operations, with a unified vision.
The challenge of external auditing and its limitations also surfaces. Ariba points out pre-announced audits allow suppliers to prepare, potentially leading to adjusted conditions. This makes it challenging to assess proper safety standards, fair pay, or the freedom for workers to express genuine concerns. This lack of visibility, especially in deeper supply chain tiers, like tier two and tier three suppliers, presents a significant risk. Ariba notes that hidden informal agreements and subcontractors are "the real risk". Things unseen cannot be fixed. This highlights a systemic challenge in ensuring integrity across complex supply networks.
"The deeper we go into the supply chain… the harder it is to see what's actually going on."
Acknowledging Auditing Limits
The visibility problem in supply chains leads to deeper questions about auditing effectiveness. Ariba notes that audits are "usually pre-announced". This allows facilities to prepare, potentially presenting an idealized picture rather than an operational reality. She states this makes it "difficult for us to know what is actually happening". It also becomes hard to ascertain if workers feel "free that they can come to us and talk about the problems that they are facing". This includes questions of fair pay. Overcoming this challenge means moving beyond simple verification to cultivate genuine transparency. It requires methods that can capture daily realities, not curated performances.
The issue is not limited to compliance documentation. It extends to the willingness of individuals to disclose challenges without fear of reprisal. This raises a systemic dilemma: how to gain authentic data when auditing can distort the information received. Ariba does not offer a simple solution. She highlights the complexity of the problem. It is a challenge inherent in environments where external scrutiny can lead to internal adjustments for a PowerPoint presentation rather than fundamental change. The apparel industry exemplifies this. Its complex, multi-tiered supply chains often obscure the conditions in lower-tier operations.
For Ariba, the solution to influencing behavior lies significantly in training. If people "don't know why they are doing what they are doing" or "what can be the cons if they don't do this", gaps in safety and practice will persist. Training must convey the "need to do it on their own". This means showing employees the implications of their actions through real-life examples. Ariba swears, “concrete visuals can be eye-opening”. Ariba cites her NEBOSH training, where videos of accidents "that have happened with people worldwide" effectively demonstrated the consequences of neglecting safety protocols. Such direct exposure creates a relatable understanding of risk.
However, the efficacy of such visual deterrents has limitations and points to a deeper psychological barrier. When people are immune to visuals, it suggests that mere exposure to negative consequences is not always sufficient to alter ingrained habits or dismissive attitudes. The question then becomes: If warnings are insufficient, what other systemic levers exist to compel responsible behavior?
“Auditing, particularly with pre-announced visits, struggles with deep supply chain visibility, making it challenging to uncover actual conditions.”
"You should know how to communicate. It would lead nowhere if you don't communicate the why with your audience… no matter how good your proposal is."
The Mentorship of Understanding
The discussion of incentives and the complexity of human motivation brings to light the role of mentorship in shaping a professional's approach. Ariba highlights Mr. Yanesh Pasak, her mentor at the Times Group, as an influential figure. He provided lessons not on specific sustainability content, but on its effective delivery. His central teaching: "Being right is not always enough. You also have to be convincing". This wisdom applies irrespective of the field. A brilliant plan, supported by robust data, can "fall flat in front of the board of directors" if its presentation lacks conviction or appropriate communication.
This lesson resonates with the corporate environment Ariba describes. Data alone does not make decisions. It requires strategic communication. Professionals must understand the "jargon to use" and "how to present it in a presentable way". Mr. Pasak's insight underscores that the intellectual validity of an argument is only one component of its success. Its persuasive power and alignment with the audience's framework are equally vital. This applies whether one is advocating for environmental initiatives or discussing financial strategies.
A key "pain point" Ariba frequently encounters in presentations is the budget. The most innovative plan is dismissed if it does not fall within financial constraints. An "out of the world plan" will "quietly disappear" if not framed within budgetary realities. This means sustainability proposals must demonstrate a clear return or long-term financial benefit. Ariba suggests that even a 15% increase beyond an initial budget might be "doable" if the proposal aligns with the company's "long-term vision" and leads to "more customers or revenue".
The long-term vision offers a bridge for increased investment. It indicates a pragmatic approach. It acknowledges that financial viability is not an adversary to sustainability but a condition for its adoption in the corporate sphere. Understanding economic drivers transforms sustainability from a perceived cost center into a strategic investment. It emphasizes the need for sustainability professionals to articulate benefits in the language of business rather than relying solely on ethical imperatives.
The challenges Ariba detects are clear. Lack of supply chain visibility, resistance to comprehensive change, and the constant negotiation with economic realities persist. Yet, Ariba's experience offers a reasoned optimism. Progress, even in small increments, is still progress. The evolution of sustainability is an ongoing process of learning, adapting, and finding new ways to bridge the gap between intent and impact.
What I learned from Ariba Naaz
-
Sustainability, at its core, is deeply intertwined with disaster management. Both are about preventing future crises and building resilience.
-
The "Social" aspect of ESG is often neglected, yet it is foundational to effective sustainability initiatives, especially in India.
-
Genuine impact often stems from direct, personal connection with workers and communities, a trait more visible in smaller businesses than in some large corporations.
-
Auditing, particularly with pre-announced visits, struggles with deep supply chain visibility, making it challenging to uncover actual conditions.
-
Effective communication, understanding the audience's "pain points," and framing proposals within their long-term vision are critical for driving change, regardless of how technically sound an idea is.
Open Questions
-
Question 1: Ariba Naaz highlights that companies frequently overlook the "social" aspect of ESG, especially in India. What concrete steps can organizations take to genuinely prioritize and integrate the well-being of their workers and communities rather than just implementing policies on paper?
-
Question 2: The article discusses the challenge of gaining authentic data during pre-announced audits. If traditional auditing methods fail to reveal true conditions, what innovative approaches or technologies could foster greater transparency and trust throughout complex supply chains?
Comprehension Challenge: Ariba Naaz
Philosophy
Ariba Naaz’s experience demonstrates that actual sustainability impact often requires a shift from idealistic ambitions to pragmatic acceptance of incremental gains, and from distant corporate directives to direct human connection. She champions the belief that even small wins are valid progress, mainly rooted in a genuine understanding of local realities. This challenge tests that principle, pitting a clear, externally-driven compliance path against a more challenging, locally-rooted initiative.
The Scenario
Imagine 'Sanjay,' the head of sustainability for a rapidly growing mid-sized textile manufacturing company in India. His company has just secured a significant contract with a European fashion brand known for its stringent ESG requirements. Meeting these demands will significantly boost the company's reputation and profitability.
Option A (The "External Compliance" Path): Sanjay can invest heavily in a top-tier global auditing firm to meticulously ensure compliance with all European standards for environmental impact (E) and corporate governance (G). This will guarantee the contract and impressive ESG scores, but it will be a costly, centralized effort. It will leave minimal budget for social initiatives beyond basic legal requirements for his factory workers, who currently face long hours and limited access to health facilities. The data suggests this is the fastest, most reliable path to securing the brand contract and attracting more international clients.
Option B (The "Local Impact" Path): Sanjay can reallocate a significant portion of the compliance budget to a new internal program focused on improving worker well-being (S). This would include on-site health clinics, subsidized meals, and flexible working hours. This initiative is deeply personal to Sanjay, as his family originally worked in the same factories. However, it means accepting potentially lower initial external ESG scores, delaying full compliance with some of the European brand’s less critical environmental targets, and risking the loss of the immediate, high-profile contract. It would also likely face skepticism from the board, who prioritize rapid market expansion.
The Task
What is Sanjay's imperative as a sustainability leader, applying Ariba Naaz’s insights? Should he prioritize the externally-driven compliance that secures immediate growth (Option A), or the internally-driven social improvements that directly benefit his workforce (Option B)? Develop a strategy that allows Sanjay to justify his final choice to his board, employees, and the European client. How should a leader weigh pragmatic, incremental social progress against the demands of global compliance standards?