The true measure of environmental stewardship is not visibility but verifiability, says Priyabrat Biswal

 

Every year on World Environment Day, corporates across India flood newspapers, social media platforms, and annual reports with images of smiling employees planting saplings, executives holding watering cans, and promises of a greener tomorrow. The language is familiar — sustainability, climate action, carbon neutrality, ESG leadership, community stewardship.

Yet behind the photographs, slogans, and annual declarations lies a simple question that often goes unasked:

What happened to the trees after they were planted?

In May 2026, while preparing a feature on the progress of Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam 2.0, formal requests for information were sent to at least twelve major corporate houses and public sector undertakings operating in Odisha. The purpose was straightforward. The objective was to document the success of a campaign that has been projected as one of India’s largest people-led environmental movements.

The request sought basic information: the number of saplings planted, the locations where plantations had been undertaken, survival rates, maintenance mechanisms, and details of any verification or monitoring exercises conducted. Photographs and geo-tagged locations were requested so that the achievements could be documented and showcased to a wider audience.

The campaign itself carries a powerful idea. Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam encourages every citizen and institution to plant a tree in the name of their mother. It combines environmental responsibility with personal emotion, transforming plantation into an act of gratitude and conservation into a collective national mission. It is a campaign that resonates beyond policy and statistics because it appeals to memory, affection, and responsibility.

For industries and public sector undertakings, participation aligns naturally with corporate social responsibility commitments, environmental obligations, and sustainability goals. Many organisations have publicly associated themselves with the initiative, often highlighting plantation drives as evidence of their contribution to climate action and ecological restoration.

The questionnaire sent to companies and government agencies was neither complex nor unreasonable.

It sought details of the total number of saplings planted between June 2025 and May 2026, the exact locations of plantation sites, the area covered, and the nature of land where plantations had taken place. It asked how many saplings had survived as of April 30, 2026, what maintenance mechanisms were in place, and whether any third-party audits or verification exercises had been conducted.

The questionnaire also requested information on community participation. Were local panchayats involved? Were schools, self-help groups, or villagers engaged in nurturing the plantations? Could media representatives visit the plantation sites for independent verification and documentation? What were the plans for maintenance and expansion during 2026-27?

These were not questions designed to expose shortcomings. They were questions designed to measure outcomes.

What followed was unexpected.

Given the scale of the organisations approached and the routine emphasis they place on sustainability, community engagement, and environmental stewardship, one would reasonably expect at least an acknowledgement of the request. The information sought was neither commercially sensitive nor confidential. It related to a public-facing environmental campaign that many institutions have actively promoted. Yet the outcome was remarkable in its uniformity.

Despite allowing sufficient time for responses and directing the queries to the appropriate communication channels, not a single organisation acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire. No data was shared, no clarification was sought, and no indication was given that the information was being compiled.

The final tally was stark: a response rate of zero.

There was not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, a clarification, a request for additional time, or a simple indication that the information was under compilation. The silence was absolute.

The same silence extended to the state-level authorities from whom similar information had been sought.

It is important to clarify that the names of the companies and institutions approached for this exercise are intentionally not being disclosed. The purpose of the inquiry was neither to single out any organisation nor to create controversy around individual entities. The objective was to understand the overall status of a nationally significant environmental initiative and to document examples of success and best practices. Naming organisations that did not respond could shift the focus from the larger issue of transparency and accountability to a debate over individual corporate conduct. This feature therefore, examines the pattern of non-response rather than the identities of those who remained silent.

Silence, of course, is not evidence of failure.

There may be several explanations. Information may still be under compilation. Internal approvals may be pending. Communication teams may have overlooked the request. Administrative delays are not uncommon in large organisations.

Yet when a dozen prominent institutions representing some of Odisha’s largest industrial and infrastructure investments remain silent on the same subject, the silence itself becomes a matter worthy of examination.

The episode raises questions that deserve reflection.

Are plantation numbers being monitored with the same diligence with which they are announced?

Are survival rates being regularly assessed and documented?

Do organisations maintain geo-tagged records and monitoring systems capable of withstanding independent scrutiny?

Or have plantation drives gradually become ceremonial exercises whose significance ends once the photographs are taken and the press releases circulated?

The concern is not hypothetical.

Across India, environmental campaigns often celebrate the number of saplings planted while paying far less attention to the number of trees that survive. Success is frequently measured on the day of plantation rather than years later when survival, growth, canopy development, and ecological benefits can actually be evaluated.

A sapling placed in the ground creates a statistic.

A tree that survives creates an environmental legacy.

The difference between the two is accountability.

What makes the silence particularly striking is its contrast with the efficiency that usually characterises corporate communication systems. Press releases announcing plantation drives, environmental awards, sustainability milestones, and ESG achievements routinely reach media inboxes. Annual sustainability reports are produced with impressive detail. Carbon reduction targets, biodiversity initiatives, and community engagement programmes are showcased before shareholders, investors, regulators, and rating agencies.

Yet when asked for a basic status update on a flagship environmental campaign, those communication channels appeared to stop functioning.

It is difficult to avoid two impressions.

The first is that some organisations may not be entirely comfortable sharing the actual status of their plantations, particularly survival rates. Last year, various entities publicly announced ambitious plantation figures. If survival percentages are significantly lower than expected, disclosure could invite difficult questions regarding maintenance, monitoring, and long-term commitment.

The second impression is equally unsettling. It is possible that the requests were ignored simply because they originated from an independent journalist rather than a major national media house or a mainstream publication. If that is the case, it reflects an unfortunate hierarchy of engagement in which visibility matters more than transparency and influence matters more than information.

Neither possibility strengthens public confidence.

Environmental accountability cannot be selective. A company’s commitment to sustainability should not depend on who asks the question. Transparency is meaningful only when information is shared consistently and without discrimination.

The survival of a tree does not become less important because the inquiry originates from an independent publication rather than a leading newspaper.

The larger issue extends far beyond a single campaign.

As governments, investors, regulators, and citizens increasingly focus on climate action, environmental claims will face growing scrutiny. Future credibility will depend not on how many saplings are planted but on how many survive. It will depend on transparent records, third-party verification, community participation, long-term maintenance, and openness to independent assessment.

The true measure of environmental stewardship is not visibility but verifiability.

World Environment Day is rightly a moment to celebrate progress. It is also a moment to ask difficult but necessary questions.

If lakhs of trees have indeed been planted across Odisha under Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam 2.0, there should be pride in sharing the evidence. There should be maps, photographs, survival audits, maintenance records, and stories from communities that continue to nurture those plantations. There should be confidence in opening plantation sites for public and media verification.

Environmental initiatives gain credibility when they welcome scrutiny, not when they avoid it.

Instead, there was silence.

And silence created a vacuum that facts should have filled.

A campaign dedicated to honouring mothers deserves more than ceremonial participation. It deserves long-term commitment, transparency, and accountability. Trees do not survive because they were planted. They survive because someone continues to care for them long after the cameras leave and the headlines fade.

On this World Environment Day, the unanswered question remains remarkably simple.

How many of those saplings are still alive?

Until that question is answered, the real story of Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam 2.0 in Odisha remains unfinished.

 

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website or its management.)