Last week, after Greenpeace activists targeted the Essar offices here and in London on the issue of environmental damage at Mahan in Madhya Pradesh, the Ruia-owned group slapped a Rs 500-crore defamation suit (Rs 1,000-crore suit, says Greenpeace) against the global pro-environment group in the high court (HC) here.
Even as companies take legal steps against environmental groups, chief executives say they realise the importance of the concerns raised by environmental groups; they insist they have taken initiatives themselves, too, in the area.
"When we set up a road project, we have to cut thousands of trees but we also plant three times this number," says a top official at Larsen and Toubro. "For any mining or infrastructure project, some damage to the environment is inevitable. The question is how we can minimise this." Wipro and HCL are examples of companies which responded positively when environmental groups asked them to eliminate toxics from their electronic products. Both pledged to address this and also take back their electronic waste. The campaigns against Bharti Airtel to power its towers with renewable energy also resulted in the Sunil Mittal-led company making significant commitments to expanding use of such energy for its telecom towers.
While some companies take corrective measures, others take environmental groups to courts. In the past, Greenpeace was sued by the Tata group, when the environmental group highlighted the issue of damage to tortoise nesting grounds at Dhamra (Odisha) during construction of a port; it then launched an online game called Turtle versus Tata. The Tatas were not amused and sued Greenpeace for trademark infringement and defamation. After the Delhi HC threw the Tatas' petition out in 2011, the matter is pending in the Supreme Court (SC).
The Ahmedabad-based Adani group faced the ire of environmental groups in Australia as they announced an $8-billion plan to mine coal and set up a port project in Queensland. The latter said this would damage the marine eco-system of the Great Barrier Reef.
The Australian government set up a study that cleared the project but after making recommendations to the Adanis to protect the environment.
Apart from environmental groups, Indian companies are increasingly facing legal scrutiny from courts. The SC made gram sabhas (village councils) decide the fate of Vedanta's aluminium project in Lanjigarh, Odisha. As expected, the villagers rejected the proposal to mine bauxite in their vicinity. The SC also banned iron ore mining in Karnataka and Goa, after evidence of illegal mining and damage to the eco-system. Environmentalists say the response of Indian companies varies significantly.
"While most are initially antagonistic, many are willing to discuss the issue and try to arrive at a solution. Overall, there is definitely a growing realisation within companies that they can no longer pay only lip service to the environment and any destructive activities run the risk of earning massive public disapproval," says Ashish Fernandes of Greenpeace.
Besides, faced with a deteriorating quality of life due to air and water pollution and climate change, the public at large is less willing to accept the argument that the environment must be sacrificed for corporate profits or growth, he says.
An Essar official says they've taken ample steps to protect the environment in Mahan, the issue of the attack by Greenpeace. Essar operates a power plant in Mahan, while its joint venture partner in the coal mine there, Hindalco, owned by the Aditya Birla group, has set up an aluminium smelter.
