Why donors keep asking for sustainability

October 26, 2026 Leave a comment

I have often been asked by the funding partners, ‘How will this project be sustained after the funding ends?’ While it is a reasonable question, it is also often the wrong one. The development sector has turned ‘sustainability’ into a synonym for ‘what will happen when the donor stops paying?’ The donors ask NGOs to build lasting solutions while often funding them through short-term, restricted projects that make long-term institutional and financial resilience harder to achieve. The real test of sustainability is the possibility of value created by the funding that can continue beyond the project cycle, and whether the economic, institutional or public systems exist to carry that value forward.

If a donor spends money on training women entrepreneurs, establishing community institutions, improving health services or creating livelihood opportunities, it is entirely reasonable to ask what happens when the grant ends. Nobody wants an intervention to disappear the moment the donor’s logo disappears from the last banner. But before asking how a project will survive without the donor, we should ask what exactly is supposed to continue, who is expected to take responsibility for it, and whether the conditions exist to make that possible.

A three-year project can be financially unsustainable but socially transformative, and it can end because its purpose has been achieved. A community institution can survive without the NGO but require continued public or market support. A livelihood intervention can become sustainable because participants increase their incomes, while the organisation delivering it remains dependent on philanthropy. And sometimes ‘sustainability’ simply means that the NGO promises to find another donor, which often is the least convincing of all. For years, development organisations have been encouraged to think about sustainability as an exit strategy. The donor funds the intervention often for 1-3 years, the NGO builds capacity, creates local ownership, establishes linkages and prepares an exit plan, and then the donor leaves and the model is expected to continue. While the logic is attractive, ending external funding and creating sustainability are not necessarily the same thing.

The OECD’s longstanding definition of sustainability in development evaluation focuses on the benefits of an intervention continuing after donor funding ends. That is a useful starting point, but it immediately raises a more important question of what will allow those benefits to continue? Government may take over, communities may contribute, users may pay, markets may generate revenue, or another institution may assume responsibility. Or the intervention may change behaviour or strengthen systems sufficiently that continued external support is no longer necessary. These are fundamentally different pathways, yet grant proposals often treat sustainability as a generic quality that can be added through a paragraph near the end of a concept note.

Consider a women’s entrepreneurship program that trains 5,000 rural women, organises producer collectives, provides business support and connects them to markets. If a donor asks how the program will be sustained after three years, the answer depends entirely on the model. Perhaps producer collectives will become commercially viable, or an anchor company will continue purchasing from the enterprises, while the financial institutions in the entrepreneurial ecosystem will provide working capital, and women will eventually pay for business services. Each possibility requires a different intervention design. If sustainability depends on markets, the project must build a viable market proposition. If it depends on government, public institutions need to be involved from the beginning. If it depends on producer collectives, those organisations need governance, capital and commercial capability. If another donor will be required, the project should be honest about that rather than presenting donor substitution as financial sustainability.

Donors increasingly expect NGOs to be resilient, adaptive and financially sustainable, while many NGOs are funded through short-term, restricted project grants that make precisely that difficult. Recent evidence from Bridgespan’s 2025 research, based on responses from 460 nonprofits and interviews with 51 nonprofit leaders, funders and intermediaries from India, found growing movement towards multiyear funding and greater recognition of core organisational costs, but continuing gaps in organisational development and financial reserves, particularly among smaller and non-metro organisations. Earlier Bridgespan research found that 83% of Indian NGOs surveyed had difficulty securing funding for indirect costs, while more than half had fewer than three months of reserves. Only 18% said they invested adequately in organisational development. Another analysis of 40 relatively well-funded Indian nonprofits found that actual core costs ranged from 5% to 51% of total costs and averaged 19%, while the average coverage provided by key donors was only 9%.

Funders ask organisations to be resilient while funding them as if their only legitimate expenditure is the activity that can be photographed and counted. Donor grants fund the field worker but not always enough of the management system that supports the field worker, training but not necessarily the organisational learning required to improve it, and program delivery while hesitating to fund reserves. Funders ask NGOs to diversify their funding while providing little unrestricted money with which to build their fundraising capacity. Then, three years later, the funder asks why NGOs are not sustainable.

Instead of asking an NGO, ‘How will you sustain this project when our funding ends?’, donors should instead ask, ‘What needs to be true for the benefits of this intervention to continue, and what role should our funding play in creating those conditions?’ This question recognises that philanthropy is often most useful when it finances a transition between two states. A grant can demonstrate that an idea works, absorb early-stage risk, strengthen institutions, develop markets, improve technology or support innovations that government and commercial finance are not yet prepared to fund. The grant should help create the conditions for the next stage. That may mean public financing, market revenue, community ownership, institutional adoption, commercial investment or another form of philanthropy. The appropriate pathway will vary by intervention, for example, a rural entrepreneurship program and a community health program should not be expected to arrive at sustainability through the same route.

This also means donors should sometimes be prepared to fund the less glamorous parts of sustainability. Financial systems are not exciting, NGO reserves are not photogenic, good middle management rarely features in impact stories, and neither do information systems, HR, audit, leadership development or fundraising capacity. Yet these capabilities determine whether an organisation can survive shocks, retain good people, manage resources and deliver programs consistently. Flexible funding is therefore not necessarily the opposite of accountability. It can be an investment in the organisational capacity required to deliver accountability well. A strong organisation with adequate systems and reserves may actually be better positioned to manage restricted program funding, and respond to changing circumstances and protect donor resources.

Then there’s another very important aspect of development programs, where everything cannot be sustained. Some projects end and achieve the desired results/purpose during their lifecycle. A delivery model may become obsolete, a technology may get replaced, a program may fail to produce meaningful results, or a community may no longer need an external intermediary. Continuing to fund something simply because it has existed for five years is institutional inertia and not sustainability.

The objective should therefore be sustainable value, not sustainable projects. This matters because many development challenges are systemic. Poverty, women’s economic exclusion, malnutrition, tuberculosis, climate vulnerability and the lack of decent employment cannot generally be ‘solved’ by a three-year project. At best, a project can change part of the system like improve a service, strengthen an institution, alter incentives, demonstrate a model, influence policy or help people acquire assets and capabilities.

Sometimes the honest answer will be that an intervention requires long-term funding, and there is nothing inherently unsustainable about that. Governments continuously spend money on education, public health, roads, social protection and environmental management. We do not ask whether a public hospital will become financially self-sustaining after three years, but are more interested in it producing sufficient public value to justify continued investment. Perhaps philanthropy should adopt some of the same logic. A community health program that requires continued financing may still be highly valuable if it prevents disease at a cost society is willing to pay. A program supporting children with special needs may never generate revenue, yet its social value can be substantial. 

So sustainability cannot always mean, ‘Can this generate its own revenue?’ That is a business-model question. For many social interventions, the better question is that, Who has a legitimate reason and capacity to pay for this value over the long term? The answer is an appropriate combination of market, government, communities, and philanthropy as per the need. This also places a responsibility on NGOs to become more honest in how they answer sustainability questions. A reassuring paragraph about capacity building, community ownership and exit strategies is not necessarily a credible plan. It’s better to be honest about it and say that the interventions may require continued public expenditure, or a livelihood project would need several more years beyond the grant cycle before it can cover its operating costs, and show the pathway. If another donor will be required, explain why and what will be different by then.

Sustainability becomes more credible when it is treated as a theory of how an intervention will continue to create value, rather than as a promise that the NGO will somehow find money after the current grant ends. We have turned a ,legitimate development objective into a ritual of grant writing. Every proposal has a sustainability section, a sustainability framework, and an exit strategy. Yet none of these, by themselves, answers the fundamental question of what will make this intervention continue to work when the source of money ends. A serious answer requires thinking about incentives, markets, institutions, behaviour, public finance, community ownership and organisational capability. It may require more than one source of funding and more than one institution. It may take five years rather than three. It may require unrestricted funding rather than another tightly earmarked project grant. And sometimes it may require accepting that the value created by a program is important enough to warrant continued investment. Perhaps, then, donors should stop treating sustainability as the final question in a grant proposal, but should be one of the first. So, instead of ‘How will you survive without us?’, the donor should ask, ‘What will exist, who will own it, who will pay for it, who will maintain it, and what should our role be when the grant ends to make the impact sustainable?’ While these are harder questions, I think, they can also lead to better projects. The most sustainable thing a donor can fund is NGOs capability, institution, market, public system or community ownership that makes the original grant less necessary over time.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of any organisation, foundation, CSR, non-profit or others.)

The cover image is generated using AI

Filed under Opinions, Social Impact Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The missing business case for ending Tuberculosis

August 24, 2026 Leave a comment

Tuberculosis (TB) presents one of the most enduring paradoxes in global health. It is preventable, diagnosable, and curable, yet it remains among the world’s deadliest infectious diseases. Every year, millions of people fall ill, and more than a million lose their lives to a disease that medicine has known how to treat for decades. The burden is concentrated overwhelmingly in the Global South, particularly in countries such as India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. Yet despite this enormous human and economic cost, TB continues to attract only a fraction of the funding mobilised for many other global health challenges. The question is not whether TB is a public health emergency, but rather why a disease with such a high burden struggles to attract sustained investment.

The answer lies less in epidemiology and more in economics. Global health financing is often driven by a combination of political attention, public visibility, strategic interests, and commercial incentives. Diseases that threaten wealthier populations, generate public fear, or offer lucrative opportunities for innovation tend to attract substantial resources. Tuberculosis does none of these particularly well. It is largely a disease of poverty, affecting populations with limited political influence and weak purchasing power. As a result, the market signals that typically drive investment remain weak, even when the social need is overwhelming.

This disconnect is evident in the global financing landscape. Governments meeting at the United Nations High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis in 2023 committed to mobilising US$22 billion annually for TB prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care by 2027, alongside US$5 billion annually for research and development. Yet current financing remains far below these ambitions. Many high-burden countries continue to face significant resource shortages, and funding gaps persist across national TB programmes. Research funding is even more constrained. Global investment in tuberculosis research remains only a fraction of what experts estimate is necessary to develop better diagnostics, shorter treatment regimens, and more effective vaccines. The world has repeatedly declared its intention to end TB, but its financial commitments suggest otherwise.

A major reason for this shortfall is the narrow donor base supporting the global TB response. Unlike some other health sectors that benefit from a broad coalition of governments, foundations, corporations, and private investors, TB relies heavily on a small number of actors. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFTAM) remains the largest external financier of TB programmes worldwide. A handful of bilateral donors and philanthropic organisations account for much of the remaining support. Outside this relatively small circle, engagement is limited. Family foundations, corporate social responsibility programmes, impact investors, and development finance institutions have yet to embrace tuberculosis as a priority issue at scale.

This concentration of funding creates vulnerability. Any reduction in donor commitments, shifts in geopolitical priorities, or fiscal pressures in donor countries can quickly undermine progress. Recent debates around development assistance budgets and declining aid commitments have highlighted the fragility of the current model. The reality is that the global TB response rests on a financial foundation that is both narrow and uncertain.

The deeper challenge, however, is that tuberculosis has never been successfully positioned as an investment opportunity. Unlike cancer therapies, medical technologies, or chronic disease management solutions, TB offers limited prospects for commercial returns. The populations most affected are often served by publicly funded health systems or donor-supported programmes. Pharmaceutical companies face uncertain revenue streams, while investors struggle to identify scalable business models capable of generating attractive financial returns. In a world increasingly shaped by market logic, tuberculosis suffers from a lack of investability.

Yet this perception obscures a much larger economic reality. Tuberculosis may be one of the highest-return investments available in international development. The disease primarily affects people during their most productive years, reducing labour force participation, household earnings, and economic mobility. Children leave school to care for sick relatives. Communities lose workers, caregivers, and local leaders. The economic impact extends far beyond health systems, affecting productivity, human capital formation, and long-term development outcomes. Every case prevented and every patient cured generates benefits that ripple across households, communities, and economies.

The problem is that these returns are largely social rather than financial. The benefits accrue to governments, employers, families, and society as a whole rather than to any single investor. Economists describe this as a classic market failure. The social return on investment is extraordinarily high, but the private return remains relatively low. As a consequence, the market underinvests in solutions despite their obvious public value.

This is precisely why tuberculosis requires a different financing narrative. For decades, the disease has been framed primarily as a public health challenge. While this framing is accurate, it is insufficient. Tuberculosis should also be understood as a development challenge, a labour market challenge, and a human capital challenge. Countries across Asia and Africa are investing heavily in education, skills, entrepreneurship, and economic growth to capitalise on their demographic dividends. Yet the continued prevalence of tuberculosis silently erodes these investments by reducing productivity and weakening workforce participation.

Reframing TB as an economic issue rather than solely a health issue could unlock new sources of capital. Development finance institutions could view TB investments as essential components of economic resilience. Corporate CSR programs could recognise tuberculosis as a workforce and community development issue. Family offices and philanthropists interested in inclusive growth could support interventions that strengthen human capital among vulnerable populations. Impact investors could explore opportunities in diagnostics, digital adherence technologies, and community-based healthcare delivery. Innovative financing mechanisms, including blended finance and outcome-based funding, could help bridge the gap between social value and financial participation.

Such approaches would not replace traditional public health financing, nor should they. Governments must remain the primary funders of national TB responses. However, relying solely on governments, multilateral agencies, and a handful of foundations is unlikely to generate the scale of resources required to end the epidemic. The financing ecosystem must expand, and that expansion will only occur if the narrative changes.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of tuberculosis is that its persistence is no longer primarily a scientific problem. The tools to diagnose and cure the disease already exist, and innovations are emerging. What remains missing is sufficient investment and political commitment to deploy these solutions at scale. In an age that celebrates technological breakthroughs and billion-dollar innovation ecosystems, the continued burden of a curable disease reflects not a failure of medicine but a failure of financing.The global community has largely treated tuberculosis as a charitable cause. It is time to recognise it as an investment in human productivity, economic resilience, and social stability. Until funders, policymakers, and investors view tuberculosis through this broader lens, the gap between disease burden and financial commitment will persist. The missing business case for ending tuberculosis is not a lack of evidence that the returns are absent.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of any organisation, foundation, CSR, non-profit or others.)

Cover image is generated using AI

First Published on LinkedIn: 26 June 2026

Filed under Opinions, Social Impact Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why change cannot be delivered

July 27, 2026 Leave a comment

Five years ago, I met Priyanka, a young woman from a small village in the Latehar district of Jharkhand. Like many women in rural India, her world was defined by invisible boundaries. Opportunities were limited, mobility was constrained, and the digital revolution that was transforming urban India felt very distant from her daily reality. When she joined a rural digital entrepreneurship programme, she did not see herself as an entrepreneur. She simply wanted to learn how to use a laptop and perhaps earn a modest income.

Today, Priyanka runs two digital service centres in her village and around. On any given day, she helps scores of people access government schemes, apply for jobs, update documents, pay utility bills, and navigate digital platforms that would otherwise remain out of reach. Villagers who once travelled long distances and spent an entire day completing simple administrative tasks now walk a few minutes to seek her assistance. More importantly, young girls in the village consider her as their role model and hold upward career aspirations. They see someone who looks like them using digital tools to build a livelihood and create value for her community.

What changed in Priyanka’s life was not merely her income but her sense of agency. She stopped being a passive recipient of charity and became an active participant in shaping the future of her community. Her story reminded me of a lesson that I have encountered repeatedly over the past twenty years in development. Lasting change does not happen when we deliver solutions to people. It happens when people gain the confidence, capability, and opportunity to create solutions for themselves.

After 20+ years in development sector, this is the lesson I carry with the greatest conviction that change cannot be delivered to people. It emerges when people discover their own power to create it. We often treat it as something that can be designed, funded, managed, monitored, and delivered. We create theories of change, strategic plans, annual targets, dashboards, and impact indicators. We write proposals describing how communities will evolve over the next three or five years and convince ourselves that social transformation can be engineered with enough resources, expertise, and discipline. Yet the longer I have worked in this sector, the more I have realised that change is far more organic, unpredictable, and human than our project documents suggest.

When I began my career, I believed what many young professionals entering the development sector believe, that poverty could be reduced through good Programs alone, that social problems could be solved through smart interventions, and that institutions with the right intent could create pathways for people to improve their lives. I still believe in all of those things. What has changed is my understanding of where transformation actually comes from. After working across livelihoods, entrepreneurship, environmental sustainability, women’s empowerment, public health, education, and digital inclusion, I have come to a simple conclusion that development succeeds when people gain the agency to shape their own futures.

One of the first assumptions I had to unlearn was the idea that communities are primarily defined by what they lack. Development discussion is filled with the language of deficits. We identify needs, vulnerabilities, gaps, and constraints, and catalogue problems and design interventions to address them. While these exercises are important, they can also blind us to a more powerful reality. Communities possess knowledge, resilience, social capital, aspirations, and capabilities that outsiders frequently underestimate. Over the years, I have met women who built successful enterprises despite social barriers, farmers who adapted to environmental challenges long before climate resilience became a policy priority, and young people who created opportunities where experts saw only limitations. What distinguished these individuals was not the assistance they received but the agency they exercised. The most successful development programs I have witnessed were those that helped people discover their own capacity to act.

This may sound obvious, yet much of the development sector still operates as though change originates from institutions rather than individuals. We often speak of empowering communities as if empowerment is something that can be handed over like a grant or a training manual. Experience has taught me that empowerment is not delivered, but is unlocked. People change their lives when they begin to see themselves not as beneficiaries of someone else’s program but as active participants in shaping their own future.

Another lesson that I took years to fully appreciate is that projects produce outputs, while ecosystems create change. Development organisations have become increasingly sophisticated in measuring activities and outputs. We know how many people attended training programs, how many households received services, how many entrepreneurs were supported, and how many villages were covered. These numbers and accountability matter as funders and stakeholders deserve evidence that resources are being used effectively. Yet some of the most transformative changes I have witnessed had little to do with what was captured in a monitoring framework.

I have seen projects with impressive numbers disappear almost entirely once funding ended. I have also seen relatively modest initiatives continue creating value years after external support had ceased. The difference was rarely the size of the budget or the quality of the project design. More often, it was whether the intervention had strengthened the local ecosystem or not. Sustainable change emerges from relationships, institutions, markets, networks, and leadership. It emerges when communities develop the capacity to solve problems collectively, and when local actors begin driving progress themselves. 

This is particularly true in the field of livelihoods and entrepreneurship, where I have spent much of my professional life. For decades, development programs have focused on training individuals, providing assets, or facilitating access to finance. These interventions are valuable, but they are rarely sufficient. Entrepreneurship does not flourish simply because someone acquires a skill. It flourishes when an entire ecosystem supports risk-taking, innovation, market access, mentorship, and growth. The future of development, especially in rural economies, lies in building environments where success becomes possible for many.

One of the more surprising lessons from my career concerns money. Having spent years raising resources for social programs, I have a deep appreciation for the role of funding in creating impact. Without resources, good ideas often remain aspirations. Yet after helping mobilise hundreds of crores for development initiatives, I have come to believe that development is rarely constrained primarily by money. That may sound like an unusual statement coming from someone whose responsibilities have included fundraising and partnership development, but experience repeatedly points in that direction.

Many social challenges that appear to be funding problems are, in reality, leadership problems, institutional problems, capability problems, or trust problems. Additional funding can accelerate progress when strong systems exist. It can also magnify inefficiencies when those systems are weak. Some of the most effective organisations I have come across were not the wealthiest. They were the ones who built credibility, nurtured talent, fostered partnerships, learned continuously, and remained deeply connected to the communities they served. Development ultimately depends on institutions, as strong institutions outlive projects, preserve knowledge, adapt to changing circumstances, and create platforms through which future generations can continue the work. Sustainable change requires institutions capable of sustaining momentum long after a grant agreement expires.

Another belief I have gradually become sceptical of is the sector’s fascination with innovation. Few words are used more frequently in development conversations today. Every conference, funding call, and strategy document seems to emphasise innovation as the pathway to impact. New technologies, new models, and new approaches are often celebrated as solutions to deeply entrenched social challenges. Innovation undoubtedly has value, and many important advances have emerged from creative thinking. Yet the longer I work in development, the more I believe that adaptation is often more important than innovation.

Communities do not need solutions that look impressive in presentations; rather, they need solutions that work within their realities. The most successful initiatives I have known were not necessarily the most innovative. They were the most adaptive and respected local contexts rather than attempting to impose external models. The development sector is full of examples where brilliant ideas failed because they ignored the realities of the people they were intended to serve. It is also full of examples where relatively simple approaches succeeded because they were grounded in local ownership and practical wisdom.

Perhaps the most important lesson of all is that ownership is the ultimate measure of impact. For many years, I believed that scale alone represented the highest aspiration in development. Reach more people, expand into more geographies, and increase the numbers. Scale is important, and the magnitude of global challenges demands ambition. Yet scale without ownership is fragile. Programs that depend indefinitely on external actors are vulnerable by design. Lasting change occurs when communities begin to see an initiative as their own, when local leaders emerge, when institutions take root, and when progress continues without constant external direction.

This requires a profound shift in how we think about our role as development practitioners. Too often, organisations position themselves as providers of solutions. A more useful role may be that of a catalyst, connector, facilitator, and investor in human potential. The objective is not to become indispensable, but to create the conditions under which communities can thrive independently. Success is not measured by how long people depend on us, but by how effectively people progress without us.

As I reflect on my 20+ years in this sector, I remain optimistic despite the scale of the challenges before us. Climate change, inequality, unemployment, public health crises, and social exclusion remain formidable problems. Yet I have seen enough examples of human ingenuity, resilience, and determination to believe that meaningful progress is possible. I have seen individuals transform their circumstances, communities build collective solutions, and institutions evolve into powerful vehicles for social change. These experiences have reinforced my conviction, which has only grown stronger with time.The future of development will not be determined solely by larger budgets, more sophisticated frameworks, or more ambitious programs. It will be determined by our ability to strengthen local institutions, nurture entrepreneurship, build resilient economic ecosystems, and trust communities to shape their own destinies. If twenty years have taught me anything, it is that change is not something we deliver to people. Change is something people create when they have the opportunity, confidence, and freedom to act. Our responsibility is not to direct that process. It is to help create the conditions that make it possible and then have the humility to step aside.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of any organisation, foundation, CSR, non-profit or others.

(Cover image is generated using AI)

Filed under Opinions, Social Impact Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Living Mountain

June 22, 2026 Leave a comment

Author: Amitav Ghosh | 48 Pages | Genre: Fiction | Publisher: Fourth Estate India | Year: 2022 | My Rating: 7.5/10

“Earth will survive. It has been through much worse. It’s really us who will suffer unimaginable change”
― Amitav Ghosh, The Living Mountain

The Living Mountain by Amitav Ghosh is a 48-page wonder of a striking ecological fable that narrates a profound moral argument. This book, published during the COVID-19 pandemic, feels less like a conventional story and more like a parable for the Anthropocene, urgent, allegorical, and quietly unsettling.

The narrative revolves around Mahaparbat, a sacred ‘living mountain’ revered by indigenous communities who coexist with it through restraint and ritual. This fragile balance is disrupted when outsiders, symbolically named ‘Anthropoi,’ arrive to exploit the mountain’s resources, triggering ecological and social collapse. The story, framed almost as a dream, distils humanity’s extractive relationship with nature into a stark moral conflict between reverence and domination.  

What makes the book compelling is its deliberate simplicity. Ghosh avoids dense scientific exposition, common in his earlier works like The Great Derangement, and instead uses myth and metaphor to communicate the climate crisis. This shift to fable is effective as it bypasses intellectual resistance and speaks directly to ethical intuition. The mountain is not just a setting but a sentient presence, embodying a worldview where nature is alive, reciprocal, and deserving of respect.

However, this same simplicity is also the book’s limitation. There is little narrative ambiguity or character complexity where the Anthropoi represent greed, the villagers represent harmony, and the trajectory is predictably tragic. Readers looking for layered storytelling or nuanced psychological depth may find it overly didactic. I thought that I was reading an Indian version of the Hollywood movie Avatar from 2009!

In a literary landscape crowded with sprawling climate narratives, The Living Mountain functions like a sharp intervention, almost a moral pamphlet disguised as fiction. It can be read in a single sitting, but its implications linger, forcing reflection on how modern development mirrors the destructive ascent of the Anthropoi.

The book also resonates with contemporary India and the Global South, where tensions between development and ecological preservation are immediate and visible. Ghosh subtly aligns indigenous knowledge systems with sustainability, challenging dominant models of progress that equate exploitation with advancement.The Living Mountain is less about storytelling and more about warning. This fable is didactic, symbolic, and purposeful. While it may lack narrative complexity, it succeeds as a powerful ecological allegory, reminding us that the crisis we face is not just environmental, but civilizational.

Filed under Books Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Why India needs a circular textile reuse revolution

March 30, 2026 Leave a comment

The clothes we wear have a hidden afterlife. Even after a garment is worn a few times and forgotten at the back of a wardrobe, its environmental footprint remains in landfills, waterways, and the atmosphere. The global fashion industry today has a material and emissions footprint so large that it rivals that of entire nations. Each year, around 92 million tonnes of textile waste are generated worldwide, most of it ending up in landfills or incinerators, even though a large share of it is still wearable or recyclable. This is not just a lifestyle problem; it is a climate, water, and waste crisis rolled into one. In countries like India, Brazil, and the United States, the scale of textile waste varies, but the pattern remains the same, with fast fashion fuelling overconsumption, linear disposal systems leaking value, and communities paying the price through polluted land, stressed water systems, and rising emissions.

A practical alternative exists, and it is already visible in the reuse models emerging across cities and communities. The ‘collection-sorting-reuse-recycling model’, where clothes donated by households are graded and channelled into resale, regional redistribution, or material recycling, offers a rare triple win. It can save energy and water by avoiding virgin production, reduce landfill pressure and carbon emissions, and create dignified livelihoods across the value chain. In a world searching for climate solutions that also create jobs, textile reuse is a low-hanging fruit hiding in plain sight.

The environmental logic of reuse is powerful. Producing new clothing is energy and water-intensive, especially when fibres are grown, dyed, finished, shipped, and marketed across continents. Cotton alone accounts for massive freshwater use, while polyester is derived from fossil fuels and contributes to microplastic pollution. The fashion sector contributes an estimated 2–8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most carbon-intensive consumer industries.[i] When a garment is reused even once, a large portion of that embedded energy, water, and carbon footprint is avoided. Lifecycle assessments consistently show that resale and reuse pathways can cut emissions per garment by more than half compared to producing a new equivalent, while also sparing thousands of litres of water per kilogram of clothing.[ii] In practical terms, every shirt reused is a shirt not produced, and every kilogram diverted from landfill is methane not emitted during decomposition.

India’s case illustrates both the urgency of the problem and the promise of the solution. The country generates around eight million tonnes of textile waste every year, which is 8.5% of global post-consumer textile discards. India’s textile and apparel sector generates close to four million tonnes of post-consumer textile waste annually, making it one of the country’s largest contributors to landfill, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. While an estimated 57% of used textiles are reused or recycled, these processes take place almost entirely through informal, fragmented, and unregulated channels. The remaining 43% ends up in landfills or is incinerated, reflecting an unsustainable linear ‘buy-use-discard’ consumption pattern that continues to accelerate with the growth of fast fashion[iii].

While India has long traditions of repair and hand-me-downs, rapid urbanisation and fast fashion consumption are overwhelming these cultural buffers. The result is a growing stream of clothing waste in municipal dumps, often mixed with organic waste, making recycling harder and environmental harm more acute. Yet India also hosts some of the world’s most innovative reuse ecosystems. Organisations such as Humana People to People India is demonstrating how urban surplus clothing can be collected and sold through retail channels, and income used for funding social development outcomes[iv], and Goonj collection channelled to rural communities in dignified ways, linking redistribution to community development and livelihoods.[v] Informal networks of sorters, repairers, and traders already keep a significant portion of textiles in circulation, proving that reuse is culturally and economically viable when supported by the right infrastructure. 

Brazil presents a parallel story shaped by urban consumerism and rising awareness. The country generates millions of tonnes of textile waste annually, with a large fraction still going to landfills due to limited formal recycling and reuse systems.[vi] Yet a growing thrift and resale movement, especially among younger Brazilians, is reframing second-hand fashion as both affordable and aspirational.[vii] Community cooperatives and small recyclers are beginning to integrate textile waste into circular micro-economies, creating jobs in sorting, resale, and upcycling. The lesson from Brazil is that cultural acceptance of reuse can shift quickly when affordability, sustainability narratives, and local entrepreneurship align.

The United States, often seen as the epicentre of fast fashion consumption, offers a different scale of lessons. Tens of millions of tonnes of textiles are discarded each year, but the country also has one of the world’s most established second-hand markets, supported by charities, social enterprises, and commercial resale platforms. Organisations collecting used clothing divert billions of pounds from landfills annually, channelling them into domestic resale, international reuse markets, and recycling streams.[viii] Even in a high-consumption society, reuse systems demonstrate that scale is possible when logistics, sorting infrastructure, and consumer awareness are aligned. The American experience shows that reuse is not marginal, but can be commercially viable, and environmentally meaningful at the national scale.

There could be lessons learnt from Brazil and the USA, and good practices replicated in India. Beyond environmental benefits, reuse models unlock employment that matters deeply for India. Every stage of the circular value chain creates work, from collection crews and logistics managers, sorting centre workers trained in grading and repair, retail staff in reuse shops, resellers in Tier II and III towns, and recycling technicians handling end-of-life textiles. Unlike capital-intensive manufacturing, reuse and sorting are labour-intensive, making them ideal for employment generation in peri-urban and rural contexts. India’s textile and apparel ecosystem already employs tens of millions of people, and circular extensions of this value chain can add new layers of income while formalising parts of the informal economy.[ix] For women and youth, especially in low-income communities, reuse enterprises can offer accessible entry points into entrepreneurship and wage work, from operating neighbourhood collection hubs to running small resale outlets.

Such models fit well within India’s national climate adaptation priorities. The National Action Plan on Climate Change[x]emphasises sustainable consumption, waste reduction, and resource efficiency as pillars of climate resilience. Textile reuse contributes to mitigation by cutting emissions embedded in production and avoiding landfill methane, while also supporting adaptation by reducing pressure on water systems and urban waste infrastructure. In water-stressed cities, every litre saved through avoided textile production matters. In flood-prone regions, reducing landfill volume lowers the risk of waste-choked drainage and secondary pollution. Circular textile systems thus become part of urban resilience, not just waste management.

The social enterprise model further adds public value, where profits from resale and recycling can cover operating costs and fund social programs. By reinvesting surpluses into community education, skills training, or local environmental projects, reuse systems can close the loop between consumption and social impact. This can become an excellent example of regenerative economics, where waste becomes a revenue stream that sustains both the enterprise and the communities it serves. When scaled across cities through partnerships with RWAs, municipalities, and CSR programmes, such models can become a distributed infrastructure for circularity, embedded in everyday life rather than confined to pilot projects.

While reuse alone cannot solve fashion’s environmental crisis, overproduction must be addressed, and durable design, extended producer responsibility, and recycling innovation are all necessary. But reuse is the fastest, cheapest, and most socially inclusive solution available today. It requires no new technology breakthroughs, only better organisation of what already exists and conscious consumerism. 

Embracing circular textile reuse at scale in India is not just an environmental choice, but an essential development strategy. It aligns climate action with employment, urban resilience with rural markets, and consumer behaviour with community benefit. Brazil’s cultural shift towards thrift and the USA’s large-scale reuse infrastructure show that such transitions are possible across income levels and cultures. The question is no longer whether reuse works, but whether policy, capital, and civic will can come together to make it the norm rather than the exception. If India gets this right, it will not only reduce its textile footprint but also demonstrate how climate action can be woven into the fabric of everyday economic life.

(Post Images are generated using AI)

References 

[i] https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161636#:~:text=The%20fashion%20industry%20is%20one,of%20global%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions

[ii] Number Analytics. “The Impact of Recycled Textiles on the Environment.” Lifecycle assessment review, 2024.

[iii] https://reports.fashionforgood.com/report/sorting-for-circularity-india-wealth-in-waste/chapterdetail?reportid=813&chapter=3

[iv] Humana People to People India. “Reuse and Circularity in Textiles”, 2026

[v] Goonj (India). Organisational model and impact summaries, publicly available reports.

[vi] Upcycle4Better. “Textile Recycling in Brazil.” Country brief, 2023.

[vii] Greenbook. “The Thrifting Revolution in Brazil.” Market insight report, 2024.

[viii] Planet Aid

[ix] CSTEP. “India’s Textile and Apparel Sector: Ecosystem and Readiness for EPR.” Policy report, 2024.

[x] National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), Govt. of India

Filed under Green, Opinions Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts