Sustainability is often framed as a problem of ambition or finance—net-zero targets, climate pledges, ESG disclosures, or new technologies. In practice, it is just as much a problem of information. Who receives it early enough, in a usable form, and with the capacity to act on it often determines who participates meaningfully in sustainability transitions. When information arrives late, remains technical, or lacks institutional support for interpretation, participation becomes symbolic rather than real.
At its core, sustainability is not only about outcomes but about process. Access to information shapes who can comply with new standards, adapt to risks, access incentives, or influence decisions. In this sense, information functions as infrastructure. Like roads or power, it quietly determines whether sustainability systems are inclusive or exclusionary.
READ I Water use efficiency key to achieving multiple SDGs
Information as the missing layer in climate adaptation
India has made visible progress in climate information systems. Heatwave advisories, flood alerts, and drought warnings now cover much of the country, supported by the India Meteorological Department and state disaster management authorities. This expansion matters. India is among the most heat-exposed countries globally, with rising frequency of extreme heat days documented by the IMD and the World Meteorological Organisation.
Yet the impact of these systems remains uneven. Evidence from major cities shows that while heat alerts exist, they often fail to translate into behavioural change among informal workers, street vendors, and construction labourers. Advisories warn of extreme heat but rarely explain how outdoor workers can realistically adjust work hours, secure shade, or access drinking water. Information is broadcast, but not operationalised.
Timing and localisation are the binding constraints. When alerts reach communities after daily work decisions are already made, or without clear pathways for response, information reduces risk awareness but not vulnerability. Participation becomes passive receipt rather than active adaptation.
READ I Copper demand surge drives India’s sustainability push
Consultation without comprehension
A similar pattern appears in environmental governance. Formal transparency mechanisms exist. Environmental impact assessments are disclosed, public hearings are notified, and consultation periods are specified. On paper, participation is assured.
In practice, these processes privilege those with time, literacy, and technical expertise. Dense documents, compressed timelines, and English-only disclosures limit meaningful engagement. Communities most affected by infrastructure and environmental decisions may be “consulted” yet remain unable to shape outcomes. The problem is not intent but design. Information systems are rarely built with participation as their primary objective.
As a result, consultation often becomes procedural rather than deliberative. Disclosure substitutes for engagement, and transparency coexists with exclusion.
READ I BRSR is not enough: India needs sector-wise ESG metrics
ESG compliance and MSME sustainability
Information asymmetry is most visible as sustainability becomes embedded in markets, supply chains, and finance. India’s ESG and sustainability disclosure architecture has expanded rapidly, driven by SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting framework and buyer-led supply-chain requirements.
Large firms, supported by internal teams and consultants, can interpret evolving standards, align reporting with strategy, and position themselves as sustainability leaders. MSMEs, which anchor many export-oriented and sustainability-critical supply chains, face a different reality. They often respond reactively to buyer demands, with limited clarity on the rationale, long-term implications, or potential opportunities embedded in sustainability standards.
Participation, therefore, depends less on willingness to act and more on interpretive capacity. Sustainability risks becoming an expert-driven domain, where those who can decode frameworks shape priorities, while others comply without agency. Compliance may rise, but innovation and ownership remain thin.
When data decides whose knowledge counts
The most consequential effect of information asymmetry lies in decision-shaping. Information does not merely enable participation; it determines whose knowledge is recognised. What gets measured, modelled, and reported often drives what gets prioritised.
In climate adaptation planning, data-driven risk assessments play a central role. Yet these models frequently under-represent informal livelihoods, lived experience, and social vulnerability because they are harder to quantify. When disclosure replaces deliberation, technically robust systems can still sideline ground realities. Information asymmetry is rarely accidental; it reflects how power, expertise, and incentives are distributed within sustainability systems.
Designing information as public infrastructure
For policymakers and regulators, this demands a shift in approach. Information cannot be treated as an afterthought, appended through disclosures or consultations once decisions are largely settled. It must be embedded early in policy design, with explicit attention to timing, accessibility, and interpretive support.
Sustainability information should be treated as public infrastructure. Like physical or digital infrastructure, it must be designed for usability, feedback, and trust. This requires investment in intermediaries—local institutions, worker organisations, industry bodies, and civil society actors—that can translate data into decisions and action. Policy effectiveness will increasingly depend not on how much information is produced, but on who can act on it.
India’s investments in digital public infrastructure offer an opportunity, but technology alone is insufficient. Digital reach does not guarantee participation. Trust, literacy, and the ability to influence outcomes remain decisive.
As sustainability transitions accelerate, the central question is no longer whether information exists, but whether it enables agency. Who participates in shaping priorities, accessing benefits, and influencing decisions depends on how seriously access to information is treated as a foundational pillar of sustainability policy.
If sustainability is to move from aspiration to action, information must do more than inform. It must empower.
Suryaprabha Sadasivan is Senior Vice President, Chase Advisors.