The Shifting Sands of Certainty
Human systems are built on order. We establish legal and commercial structures, seeking to manage complexity through defined rules. How does this precise approach align with the expansive concept of sustainability? Shashank S, whose professional foundation lies in the rigorous fields of law and business, offers a pointed view on this transition. His journey from established certainties to the fluid demands of planetary health reveals a necessary shift in intellectual perspective.
Shashank views ESG and sustainability as interconnected. They link finance, biology, sociology, and moral science. This broad scope suggests no single professional background is a prerequisite for engagement. He considers sustainability a composite of all acquired knowledge, a continuous learning process from early life onward. This understanding implies that individual experience profoundly shapes one's capacity to address environmental, social, and governance challenges.
A fundamental distinction for Shashank exists between human-made regulations and the planet's inherent system. Legal frameworks, he explains, are human constructs, "prepared by us" and "followed by us," based on historical and economic contexts. Sustainability, by contrast, existed long before humanity and will continue to exist after. He directly states, "The earth does not need us". Our efforts, often framed as "saving the earth," are about "saving just ourselves". This insight implies that human responsibility for sustainability stems from a pragmatic need to secure our own future, not from safeguarding the planet itself.
This perspective alters the foundation of environmental stewardship. It moves the discussion from an abstract moral imperative to a tangible necessity for self-preservation. The essence of sustainability, therefore, is not about imposing human rules on nature. It is about understanding and operating within the planet's own large-scale system. He concludes this "big gambit of sustainability" cannot be confined by the "little tiny... rules and regulations that the humans have prepared". This forms the bedrock of Shashank's view, demanding humility and perpetual learning when confronting a complex, self-regulating global environment.
"The earth does not need us, you know. In a sense, we might go out about bragging, saying we are trying and saving the earth, but ideally, we are saving just ourselves."
The Green Facade of
Unseen Illusions
The clear frameworks of law often contrast sharply with the complex realities of sustainability initiatives. Companies frequently project an image of environmental responsibility. Yet, their actual impact on the ground remains questionable. Shashank S confronts this discrepancy directly. He identifies misrepresentation as the most significant threat to genuine progress. He states, "The most dangerous thing is to be fake… that is what greenwashing is." This applies beyond environmental claims. Sheshank looks past "whitewashing, blue washing, etc. ", highlighting a pervasive tendency across industries to present an outward appearance that lacks internal substance. This "greenwashing" phenomenon involves companies with little to no real action but portray comprehensive efforts to stakeholders.
The practical implementation of sustainability proves challenging for many organizations, particularly in India. Shashank explains the immense technical and resource hurdles. He states that discussing ESG broadly is easy, but "the technical understandings, the tools, the resources that you need to have to implement. All these on grounds are a separate set of challenges in themselves." He describes varied company approaches in India. Some possess resources but fail to implement genuine change. Others lack resources but pretend to act, "portraying as if they have, and they're trying to do something." Still others have no resources and show no care. This highlights a critical, unacknowledged gap between stated goals and measurable execution.
Shashank attributes this gap between reported narratives and on-ground interventions to intellectual consultants who "use flashy words and who bury the truth…in loads and loads of papers ." He observes a contrasting reality: if real interventions matched company claims, "we would have solved the problem by now ." He points to the slow progress since ESG and sustainability concepts emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, noting, "We are still at the basic level, figuring out how to do and what to do ." To him, major global companies like Tesla and Microsoft, despite publishing ambitious targets, are repeatedly “failing it”. Their inability to reach these targets raises questions for other companies, especially those not yet fully aware of concepts such as ESG or facing more immediate challenges like poverty.
Given these struggles, Shashank advises a pragmatic approach. Companies should "be humble and portray whatever has been done with the limited resources they have." The underlying principle is straightforward: "Do more and show more. Don't do less and show more." This counsel prioritizes integrity over exaggerated claims. It advocates for more transparent, realistic engagement with sustainability challenges, acknowledging the difficult path ahead rather than masking it with superficial reporting.
"The most dangerous thing is to be fake. I think you know that is what greenwashing is."
"Unless and until you put a number to it, I don't think the world's corporations will take you seriously…”
Monetizing for
Corporate Conscience
The drive to quantify everything extends to values traditionally considered immeasurable. Concepts like health, societal well-being, or seemingly priceless diversity are increasingly assigned monetary value through metrics like Social Return on Investment (SROI). This raises a fundamental question: Is it logical to attach a financial figure to the foundations of human and planetary existence? Shashank S views such attempts with skepticism. He believes terms like SROI, impact assessment, and even Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) often fall short of truly measuring impact. He notes, "I don't think you can directly measure... the returns you made on the social investments."
Shashank argues that while complex calculators and "vivid imaginations and assumptions" can produce a number, they fail to capture the real return on social investments. His reasoning centers on context and perceived value. His analogy, "the satisfaction of that person who is getting 2 cents, or having only one cent in his hand, is huge compared to a person who has 100 cents from the start." This contrast reveals the inadequacy of absolute monetary values when assessing social benefit.
For Shashank, such measurements are not black and white. He reiterates, "... there's a gray area to it." Because two cents were given, a numerical value cannot be placed on the recipient's satisfaction or the benefit derived. Therefore, "the concept, like SROI impact assessment, will not work to a great extent. It's all just assumptions." He asserts that these valuations are subjective, varying wildly between the giver’s and the recipient’s perspectives. A single number cannot encapsulate a divergence in experience.
Despite this reservation about valuing the priceless, Shashank acknowledges the pragmatic necessity of measurement within the corporate world. He compares it to a doctor examining a patient. Without metrics like "temperature, blood pressure, and sugar levels," a doctor cannot "prescribe the medicine." Measuring, he states, is of "great importance, and I think it is the first step... that people should take... towards sustainable goals." This dual perspective highlights the tension: while true social returns might defy simple quantification, the language of numbers remains essential for corporate engagement and, therefore, any lasting progress in sustainability.
Cultivating Competence
New regulations call for corporate accountability in sustainability. India's Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR), mandating detailed disclosures for the top 1,000 companies, exemplifies this shift. Is this a new lexicon for existing risks, or does it empower companies to communicate previously ignored values? Shashank views such regulations as providing a vital "language" for corporations to articulate sustainability risks in terms accessible to financial stakeholders. Beyond reporting, he highlights that assurance for BRSR and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reports adds crucial credibility. "People are going ahead with assurances also, so the numbers, whatever they've put there, are assured". This independent verification adds trust in reported figures.
This assurance, Shashank explains, directly benefits rating agencies. These agencies then "decode those numbers" and assign ratings, like CDP's A-D scale, which offers a simplified metric for investors. He argues that seeing a company rated 'A' lets an investor immediately understand its strong prospects without sifting through "500 pages these guys publish." This streamlined, verified communication bolsters the case for sustainability investments. Shashank believes this development helps "build the case for sustainability."
Still, implementing these new reporting requirements presents substantial hurdles for many Indian companies. Shashank details the primary challenge: a severe lack of resources and knowledge to measure internal sustainability metrics accurately. Companies struggle to measure emissions, understand reporting protocols, or gather necessary documentation for assurance. He states that many challenges are related to a lack of the “right talents". A few years ago, "companies were crazily hunting for sustainability professionals, and the market was dry". This often led to reliance on internal employees, resulting in reports that were " often bad and haphazard".
The situation, Shashank observes, is improving. He emphasizes now the number and capability of ESG professionals in India have increased significantly. Most successful companies, he notes, now have a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) in place. He concludes that companies are taking these roles seriously. They understand the complexity of new, stricter regulations alongside their vast regular business operations. ESG itself, with its "thousand branches" covering emissions, water, and waste, adds immense pressure. The growing recognition for qualified sustainability professionals is a positive sign, ensuring problems are "easily... solved" in-house.
"Companies were crazily hunting for sustainability professionals, and the market was dry."
New Ways of Knowing
The landscape of corporate leadership and expertise is undergoing a profound transformation. Older hierarchical structures, once valuing tenure above all, now confront the rapid ascent of younger professionals. How does this generational shift impact the very approach to sustainability? Shashank believes that influence in this evolving field stems from a "knowledge base" rather than age or traditional hierarchical power. He characterizes sustainability consultants as "green doctors" for companies, offering bespoke solutions founded on specialized understanding. He recounts an instance where a large real estate company, despite its size, saw its emissions drastically reduced after a consultant's intervention. Their previous internal reports showed four times the emissions compared to when external expertise was brought in. "It doesn't matter if I'm a younger person or an older person," he states, when the knowledge is present, even a Vice President will "hear" and "take notes". This underscores that ESG professionals are gaining direct access to decision-makers.
Shashank's "click" moment occurred with the introduction of BRSR regulations. Companies he advised were confused, prompting a deep dive into ESG. Initially, he lacked an understanding of emissions or their various scopes. The motivation to learn stemmed from the trust clients placed in him. He "didn't want to disappoint them". This pushed him to research, take courses, and return with answers, delving into specifics like hazardous waste licenses, water consumption, and different electricity measurement approaches. This professional genesis, driven by accountability, demonstrates how competence in sustainability often begins with a fundamental commitment to understanding, not pre-existing expertise.
Looking ahead, Shashank sees the primary focus not as a battle against greenwashing but the "development of professionals." He notes the increasing use of AI and the importance of integrating all elements. While reporting was initially central, the future is now about "quality" over quantity. He confidently states India is moving towards achieving higher quality in sustainability efforts. This pursuit of quality demands a nuanced understanding beyond readily available data, recognizing that "to ask the right question, you need to have a background. And you need to have… knowledge".
This shift is fundamentally reshaping career paths. The traditional dominance of "engineer and the doctors" as societal archetypes gives way to greater professional liberalization. The "Internet age has opened up India like anything," providing access to diverse paths previously "unthinkable". This "power of education," rather than seniority or experience, explains the rise of young professionals and has fundamentally changed the dynamics of companies and governments. For young people aspiring to make a difference in sustainability, Shashank advises finding their "niche" by "try[ing] and work[ing] on everything and anything". He urges against dismissing tasks, stating, "You will not get to know anything unless you've done it".
"Leave no stone unturned, because you never know what lies under those stones."
What I learned from Shashank S
-
True sustainability is not about humanity saving the Earth, but about humanity saving itself by adapting to the Earth's inherent systems.
-
"Being fake" in sustainability through greenwashing is the most dangerous approach, where portrayal replaces genuine on-ground action.
-
While concepts like Social Return on Investment (SROI) struggle to quantify intangible social benefits accurately, assigning numbers to sustainability metrics is crucial for corporate and investor engagement because the world "runs on economics".
-
India's evolving ESG landscape faces significant challenges, particularly a "talent problem" in measuring and reporting, yet it is improving with more qualified professionals.
-
The future of sustainability lies in a "hybrid model" where human knowledge and contextual understanding complement AI's data processing capabilities, requiring confidence and competence in using technology.
Open Questions
-
Question 1: Shashank argues that "the earth does not need us." If our efforts are truly about self-preservation rather than saving the planet, how might this reframing change the way companies and individuals prioritize and implement sustainability initiatives?
-
Question 2: Considering Shashank's skepticism about monetizing priceless values while acknowledging the necessity of financial metrics for corporate engagement, what innovative frameworks could better reconcile these two perspectives and reflect true impact?
Comprehension Challenge: Shashank S
Philosophy
Shashank’s insights reveal that while the law demands certainty, sustainability thrives in a "gray area," where genuine impact often defies simple quantification. He champions authenticity over superficial portrayal and highlights that actual influence stems from knowledge, not just hierarchy. This challenge tests these principles: the tension between quantifiable compliance and deep, unquantifiable impact, and the role of integrity in navigating complex decisions.
The Scenario
Imagine 'Priya,' a mid-career manager at 'EcoSolutions,' a well-established environmental consulting firm. EcoSolutions is known for its rigorous, data-driven compliance reports for large industrial clients. Priya is highly skilled in auditing and ensuring adherence to strict environmental regulations, a domain where results are black and white: compliant. Her promotion path within the firm depends heavily on her team's ability to deliver quantifiable, auditable outcomes.
EcoSolutions has just landed a major new client, TerraCorp, a diversified conglomerate with operations in remote, ecologically sensitive areas. TerraCorp is under increasing public scrutiny for its environmental footprint. Its CEO, however, is primarily concerned with meeting minimum regulatory requirements to avoid penalties and improve public image, prioritizing easily reportable metrics.
While TerraCorp meets most current regulatory minimums, Priya's team uncovers that their operational practices create significant, long-term, unquantifiable ecological damage to local biodiversity and water sources, impacts not yet covered by strict legal mandates. Addressing this would require substantial, costly overhauls far beyond compliance, with benefits that are hard to measure financially or within a quarterly report. The unaddressed qualitative impact deeply troubles Priya’s junior team members, fresh graduates passionate about holistic sustainability. They argue that simply ensuring compliance (Option A) is a form of "greenwashing" if the true environmental harm is ignored. The senior partners, however, lean towards advising TerraCorp only on compliance, stating that going beyond the law (Option B) is outside their mandate and could jeopardize the firm’s profitability and Priya's promotion.
The Task
What is Priya’s ethical imperative as a leader at EcoSolutions? Should she prioritize the quantifiable, legally compliant outcomes (Option A) that secure her career and satisfy the client’s immediate needs, or should she push for addressing the unquantifiable, long-term ecological damage (Option B) that aligns with the deeper spirit of sustainability?
Develop a strategy for Priya to justify her chosen path to her profit-driven senior partners and her purpose-driven junior team, leveraging Shashank's insights on balancing pragmatic measurement with genuine impact, and the dangers of merely portraying action. How does one advocate for "the gray area" of true sustainability within a "black and white" corporate structure?