Devyani Hari: There is a marked shift in the conversation around sustainability
Sustainability is no longer optional in India’s textile sector. From circular models and innovative processes to rigorous certifications and digital reporting, manufacturers are moving beyond greenwashing toward verifiable, responsible practices. Devyani Hari, Senior Director, Centre for Responsible Business (CRB) speaks with Divya Shetty on how Indian textile manufacturers are navigating the complex journey of sustainability.
To what extent are Indian textile manufacturers genuinely implementing sustainable practices across the supply chain? And how can these practices be independently verified rather than being presented as greenwashing?
I think there are several parts to this. There is definitely a marked shift in the conversation around sustainability. The focus is much sharper now. We also come across many examples of sustainable practices, including investments in innovation and technology, and looking at circular models.
Typically, this has started with companies focusing on their own operations first, especially larger brands. They started with improvements in their own manufacturing, and now their next focus is on the supply chain.
From a brand perspective, if you look at large international and domestic brands, for quite a few years the focus has been on supply chain sustainability. This is typically being driven through standards and certifications. This has also happened because consumers are asking for it, and because there has been negative press about the sector. The fashion industry globally is talked about as one of the highest environmental footprints, and there are social challenges, forcing the sector to address it.
However, supply chains are quite opaque. The final exporters, which is Tier 1, and Tier 2, where processing happens, are visible to some extent. But as you go lower down, it becomes very difficult to make the entire supply chain traceable.
So, this is not a black-and-white question. If you ask whether the sector is investing in sustainability and circularity, the answer is yes, but to different extents depending on their capacity and motivation.
Broadly, what is driving this includes regulatory pressure, buyer requirements, and in some forward-looking cases, access to sustainable finance. Consumers are also becoming more aware.
Resource efficiency is becoming important, especially in the processing sector where water is a major requirement. Many clusters are facing water shortages, so they are exploring solutions to reduce consumption. But technologies like waterless dyeing are not widely available solutions at the moment.
If you look at wastewater treatment across textile processing clusters, there are at very different levels. Tiruppur is moving towards zero liquid discharge, driven initially by regulatory push, but now they see the value and continue. Surat has another model with the municipality. Panipat has common effluent treatment plants, and Panipat is beginning to talk about whether they need ZLD.
Achieving full end-to-end traceability across complex textile supply chains remains extremely difficult, especially beyond Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers, although some companies have achieved high levels of traceability for specific product lines or fibres But at the same time, to say that everything being done in sustainability is greenwashing is definitely not correct.
Some larger exporters and brands are beginning to invest in science-based targets, lifecycle assessments, and preparations for digital product passports
A lot of export-oriented units are required to take sustainability certifications. Some include GOTS, OEKO-TEX, and others. There are also social standards. These certifications typically involve verification through third-party audit companies. Many brands also have their own codes of conduct.
If you speak to SMEs, they will tell you they are constantly being audited. They have to dedicate resources to it. So there are ways to validate these things, and they are not always self-assessed
European countries are also coming up with strong regulations to address greenwashing. The EU is strengthening anti-greenwashing regulation through measures such as the Green Claims Directive proposal and the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive., and India is also doing some work on circular labelling where one of the principles is avoiding greenwashing.
It is also not uncommon to see that despite certification, violations exist. It is a mixed bag. It is not that every certification is on paper. A lot of it is genuine practice. SMEs do value it because they will lose business if they are not honest about what they present.
So it is more towards actual sustainability and less towards greenwashing. However, adoption across the supply chain varies greatly depending on whether the company is export-oriented or domestic-oriented, and also depending on whether it is a medium-scale enterprise or a micro/small unit.
Medium-scale enterprises are in a much better position to invest resources and understand the trend. The landscape is also very confusing, and for small industries it is challenging to stay updated with all requirements.
What are the major challenges Indian textile exporters are facing in obtaining international certifications, particularly given increasingly stringent laws in the EU and other developed markets?
There are two things here. The certifications being followed right now are linked to voluntary standards, not regulatory requirements. When you refer to stringent standards in the EU, you are likely referring to regulatory requirements.
Most textile sustainability certifications are voluntary private standards, although in practice they may become commercially necessary because of buyer requirements. The new regulations include the corporate supply chain due diligence directive (CSDDD), the Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), and other requirements. CBAM is a carbon border adjustment mechanism, but at the moment it is not applicable to the textile sector.
Everyone is waiting to see what the relationship will be between certifications and regulations. Regulations are policy-driven and government-driven, with potential penalties. Unlike regulations, certifications are generally not enforced through statutory penalties, although non-compliance can still lead to decertification, reputational damage, and loss of business.
One major challenge for smaller exporters is identifying which certification is the right one. Brands often specify which certifications are needed to work with them. Certifications could also be repetitive. Suppliers may be reporting on the same issues, but paying for different standards and undergoing multiple audits.
There are attempts like the Social and Labour Convergence Program, which is trying to identify common standards and create a framework where a supplier is assessed once and verified across several standards and certifications.
A positive development is that many certifications are now focusing on continuous improvement rather than a binary approach of compliance or non-compliance. It recognises that sustainability is a journey and companies need to report corrective actions.
Another challenge is that many standards are set in the West, and they may not always reflect local contexts and realities. Practical application can vary greatly across countries and even within India. Sometimes requirements become too stringent without understanding practical conditions.
For example, fire extinguisher placement requirements may not consider accessibility for workers. Similarly, discussions on toilet access need to focus on clean toilets, hygiene training, and adequate hygiene breaks, rather than just access.
Certifications are also an expensive proposition. Many exporters invest because they want to continue business. However, there is no guarantee that certification will result in business. Sometimes a certification is only a requirement to start a conversation with a brand.
Going forward, companies will have to report more through lifecycle assessments, which requires understanding not just their own operations but also their suppliers. Tier 1 suppliers can build capacity among their smaller suppliers, but as you move down the chain, it becomes harder to build that capability.
Data will become critical. Data is often not missing, but it is not properly captured, stored, or utilised. It may exist in registers and manual records but not digitally recorded. Without good data, companies will not be able to support the tools required for sustainability reporting.
What are the key gaps and opportunities in India’s textile sustainability journey, and what needs to be done to ensure meaningful progress beyond compliance?
There are gaps in capacity, infrastructure, and enforcement. However, there is also momentum.
From a regulatory point of view, India already has Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR), applicable to the top 1,000 companies. Some large textile companies are already reporting because they have to.
The Ministry of Textiles is also looking at sustainability and circularity as a priority area, and is exploring interventions to support the sector. A key recommendation is to invest in capacity building, invest in data systems, and understand the upcoming regulations.
One suggestion from the industry is to identify common minimum requirements across certifications and make those mandatory, so that the industry meets a baseline, after which companies can pursue different certifications.
India has a fairly extensive environmental and labour regulatory framework, although enforcement and implementation remain uneven
Industry bodies are trying to build capacity and help members understand requirements. Brands are also working with suppliers. International bodies like GIZ and the United Nations are also supporting initiatives. We have a programme in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme called InTex, which focuses on lifecycle assessments in the manufacturing sector.
Awareness is critical. The industry cannot meet sustainability requirements if it does not understand the shifts, regulations, and implications. Sustainability and circularity should not be seen only as compliance, but as a differentiator to enhance competitiveness. Companies need to create roadmaps and plans so they are in a better position to negotiate.
Any sustainability claim made must be scientifically supported and verified. Globally, retailers are being fined for unsubstantiated claims.
Infrastructure gaps also exist, especially recycling infrastructure. Digital adoption among MSMEs is still low. ERP systems and digital data recording are not common. Digitalisation and AI integration will need to be carefully planned to ensure solutions work for MSMEs, since they form around 80% of the sector.
Domestic market demand for sustainable products is also low. Consumers do not ask whether something is recycled, organic, etc., and awareness is limited. Certifications like “organic certified” may not mean much to the average customer. Mission LiFE can be leveraged to build consumer awareness and buy in and spur positive action.
So yes, gaps exist, but momentum is building, and the industry needs to capitalise on it and change the way it operates.
