Answer

Introduction

India faces a pivotal “protein crossroads” as growing demand for animal-based protein intersects with environmental stress, trade shifts, and rising sustainability expectations. Weaknesses in existing ESG frameworks complicate governance, affecting production systems, ecosystem health, and long-term food security outcomes.

Body

India’s Current ESG Frameworks 

• Fragmented Standards: ESG norms remain scattered across sectoral guidelines, creating inconsistent sustainability expectations for agriculture and livestock systems.
• Disclosure Focus: Most ESG mechanisms emphasize voluntary corporate reporting instead of enforceable sustainability benchmarks for food value chains.
• Limited Scope: ESG rules concentrate on listed firms, excluding unorganized livestock producers who dominate India’s protein supply.
  Eg: 90% of dairy and poultry units operate outside formal reporting structures.
• Evolving BRSR Norms: SEBI’s BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting) pushes sustainability reporting but lacks protein-system specific indicators.
• Weak Social Metrics: Labour welfare, gender equity, and rural producer conditions receive limited weightage within present ESG scoring models.
• Governance Gaps: Oversight institutions lack coordination, leading to uneven regulatory enforcement across states.

How ESG Gaps Exacerbate Protein-System Risks

• Unsustainable Expansion: Absence of binding environmental norms encourages unchecked livestock expansion, stressing land, water, and feed resources.
• High Emissions Load: Weak carbon-accounting frameworks overlook methane-heavy livestock operations, escalating India’s agricultural emissions.
• Biosecurity Vulnerabilities: Poor governance mechanisms increase risks of zoonotic disease outbreaks across poultry and dairy clusters.
• Trade Exposure: Missing ESG alignment undermines compliance with emerging sustainability-linked global trade standards, threatening export competitiveness.
  Eg: EU’s sustainability regulations impacting agri-food exports.
• Inequitable Supply Chains: Social governance gaps worsen farmer exploitation, limiting income security for smallholders who produce bulk of India’s protein.
  Eg: Income disparities in dairy and fishery supply chains.
• Water Stress Escalation: Absent water-governance reporting accelerates groundwater depletion in livestock-intensive regions.

How to Overcome These Gaps 

• Unified ESG Framework: Create national ESG standards for food and protein sectors with enforceable environmental and social benchmarks.
• Protein-Sector Indicators: Introduce methane reporting, animal-welfare norms, waste management, and water efficiency metrics within BRSR.
• Formalizing Value Chains: Integrate small producers via cooperatives, digital traceability, and reduced compliance burdens.
• Green Incentives: Subsidies for methane-reducing feed, waste-to-energy technologies, and climate-resilient livestock infrastructure.
• Strengthening Governance: Improve inter-ministerial coordination and state-level enforcement via digital monitoring and climate budgeting.
• Trade-aligned Standards: Harmonize domestic norms with global sustainability requirements to safeguard protein export markets.
  Eg: Alignment with EU Green Deal norms for market access.

Conclusion

A strengthened ESG architecture tailored to India’s protein systems can balance nutritional needs, environmental limits, and global trade expectations. Integrating enforceable standards, producer inclusion, and climate-aligned governance is essential to secure sustainable, efficient, and equitable protein pathways.

DOWNLOAD PDF