30
Confronting Divides: Trust, Values, and Uncomfortable Questions
Exceeding technical blueprints, a more bottomless chasm often sabotages sus
tainable innovation at its very foundation: the human element of trust and con
flicting values. Srishti Chhatwal’s work with early-stage ventures confronts this
fundamental reality. She observes that startups “often underestimate the fric
tion and adoption” inherent in ground-level implementation, particularly when
the core struggle between “profit versus purpose”, always contends for the mid
dle ground within founding teams. This internal tension, often unacknowledged,
can derail even the most promising solutions. Successfully navigating this land
scape demands technological prowess and an equally critical reliance on “trust.”
This imperative for trust becomes pronounced when working on the ground
in diverse contexts like India. Srishti notes the prevalence of “a lot of social
stigma” that systemically affects initiatives alongside complex issues of “social
equity, gender bias, and so many other factors”. For sustainability solutions to
be genuinely effective, they must offer more than “technological aid”; they must
address these deeper societal factors. This crystallizes a philosophical lesson:
“We cannot copy and paste pilots into people’s lives.” Solutions must be deeply
customized to local realities, acknowledging unique histories and social fabrics.
Therefore, truly understanding people “with trust and maintain their trust” is
paramount, ensuring that if communities are “investing their trust in us, that
has to be confidential.” This emphasis on trust is a cornerstone of Srishti’s work,
providing a reassuring framework for her approach and instilling confidence in
her ability to navigate complex social landscapes.
This ethical imperative extends to preventing “mission drift,” a critical challenge
when “profit is the key objective.” How does one safeguard the original purpose
against the gravitational pull of financial metrics? Srishti asserts that “values
are essential” and serve as the “centering ground” when “vision and reality and
on-ground reality. These four categories always vary in the ratio of people, gov
ernment, community investors, and the founder. The philosophical litmus test
is clear: “Just because the investors are giving you money doesn’t mean you
should allow them to come in, or you should go ahead with the bid. Your value
should align with the investor as much as you are passionate about that cause
or the problem you’re trying to solve”. This principle, prioritized in Niti Aayog’s
evaluation criteria (where the problem and people are valued above money), un
derscores how unwavering adherence to core values sustains purposeful action.
“We cannot copy and paste pilots into people’s lives.”