India is on the move, and a large number of infrastructure projects are being developed in hinterland and coastal areas. The Viksit Bharat@2047 is the Government of India’s vision to make India a developed nation by 2047. This encompasses development through economic growth, social progress, environmental sustainability, and good governance. It seeks to reimagine India’s infrastructure for easier, faster movement of goods and people through port modernization, connectivity, industrialization, coastal community development, coastal shipping, and the development of inland waterways.
The development of these large infrastructure projects has environmental and social impacts. There are well-established processes for mitigating environmental impacts, and some of our processes and acts are at par with developed nations and the rules and regulations of the leading financial institutions of the world. It needs to be recognized that the impacts don’t necessarily play out linearly about the intensity of action. While land acquisition might lead to impacts on livelihoods, its seriousness might be lowered in the construction stage because other economic avenues, like labor markets, open up. However, the seriousness resurfaces at a later stage during operations. It also needs to be recognized that the consequences of impacts on communities might differ. The human-environment connection focuses on the complex systems of interaction between humans and their environment and examines the roles of social, cultural, and psychological factors in the maintenance or disruption of ecosystems. Development activities lead to biodiversity and cultural heritage loss, besides the psychological stress created by displacing or altering the natural environment. These issues, along with pollution, need to be tackled by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through Social Impact Assessments (SIA).
I feel that CSR in 2025 and the coming years should address the adaptive problems in urban and rural environments from the climate change point of view by understanding the interrelationship between technological and environmental changes and coming up with innovative projects. CSR should develop projects from the SIA studies carried out for various projects. The SIA studies are presently weak in livelihood analysis with ecosystem service elements, lack rights and development-opportunity aspects (particularly in engagement processes and disaggregation of data collected), and propose conventional mitigation measures that may or may not be grounded in data or need analyses.
The Private-Public Social Development approach rarely touches on the above aspects, often due to a lack of study time, experience, and project owners’ lack of interest or trust. Corporations should ensure that they conduct solid SIA studies so that these studies assist them in conceiving CSR projects for poverty alleviation. The SIA will provide evidence of how ecosystems function and how the services they provide support or undermine efforts to alleviate poverty and/or enhance the well-being of poor people. This involves linking the social, natural, and political sciences to address a series of focused research questions and evidence challenges using systems thinking, acknowledging the interconnectedness of social and ecological systems.
Corporations have to develop specific strategies to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse environmental and social impacts of their projects. While strategizing, they have to understand that there is a fundamental interdependence between the company and the communities. The well-being and prospects of the company are inextricably linked with the happiness of its communities. The companies’ Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) values and standards are dynamic and involve constant effort for improvement. Thus, they should not be theoretical constructs but based on best practices within the company and elsewhere.
Company processes are as important as outcomes, and so essentially, the means must be as ethical as the ends. To ensure that the strategies and objectives are appropriate and optimal, they must be designed and implemented in a participatory and transparent manner. It is also essential that there is coordination and cooperation between institutions and agencies within and outside the company.
Corporates should ensure that overlaps are avoided, and each learns from the experience (and expertise) of the other, ensuring that the good work done by one is not inadvertently undone by another.
Corporate investments in biodiversity conservation must prioritize protecting ecosystems such as mudflats, wetlands, grasslands, forests, and critical habitats, as they serve as natural barriers against environmental disasters, particularly those related to climate risks. Key measures include restoring mudflats and mangroves, improving wetland functionality through sustainable water management, and safeguarding grasslands through restoration efforts and keystone species conservation.
Forest conservation efforts should focus on creating wildlife corridors, undertaking reforestation with native species, and promoting community-led eco-tourism to reduce the impacts of linear infrastructure. Moreover, adopting biodiversity compatible designs and selecting strategic locations for green infrastructure can help minimize habitat disruption, further supported by offsets and biodiversity credit markets. Through these integrated efforts, combined with robust ecosystem research and community participation, businesses can effectively tackle biodiversity challenges and promote ecological and social resilience.
Col Prakash Tiwari (Retd),
Member Infra 1 and CRZ,
Expert Appraisal Committee,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change
