Although International Women’s Day has just passed, a single day is never enough to recognize the many contributions women make across our industry. That’s why we’re dedicating the entire month of March to our IWD Voices series, highlighting leaders who share their journeys, experiences, insights, and the lessons that have shaped them.
Next up, we speak with Chetna Israni, Co-Founder and Director at Morning Star BrandCom.
In our conversation, Chetna questions whether a single designated day is enough, arguing that rights and justice should be settled realities by now rather than annual rallying points. She also speaks to how her thinking has shifted with experience, from assuming systems are neutral to recognising that bias and uneven access are built into them.
She also shares why she sees building equitable workplaces as a daily discipline rather than a stated value, and why she believes the double standard applied to women’s emotions at work is one of the most important things the next generation should not have to inherit.
The theme for International Women’s Day 2026 is “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls.” What does this mean to you professionally and personally?
Honestly, the fact that in 2026 we still need a theme like “Rights. Justice. Action.” is sad. These are not new demands. They should have been settled realities by now.
The fact that we still need a Women’s Day also makes me pause. When any group needs a designated day to assert dignity or fairness, it means something foundational is still uneven. I have written before questioning whether we even need a Women’s Day. Sometimes it feels less like a celebration and more like tokenism.
If we are going to mark the day, then action has to mean something real. Rights cannot remain slogans. Justice cannot remain symbolic.
But if we are going to mark the day, then action has to mean something real. Rights cannot remain slogans. Justice cannot remain symbolic.
Professionally, that means building systems that do not rely only on goodwill. Personally, it means being accountable for fairness in the spaces I influence.
What first drew you to your industry, and was there a defining moment that set your career in motion? Was there a role model who influenced you early on?
What drew me in was an almost unreasonable love for communication. Words have power. They shape perception, and perception shapes reality. That always fascinated me.
I remember reading columns by Shobhaa De in Bombay Times. Her writing was sharp, sometimes caustic, but precise. She knew how to cut through noise. It showed me that communication is not decoration. It is influence.
There was no dramatic turning point. It was more a steady realisation that I wanted to work in a space where narrative, credibility and power intersect.
How has your understanding of fairness changed as you’ve gained experience and seniority?
Completely.
Early in your career, you assume systems are fair. With experience, you realise they are not. Advantage exists. Bias exists. Access is uneven.
I have seen organisations talk about fairness without practising it. I have seen leaders, including women leaders, replicate the very inequities they once criticised.
Over time, I have come to believe that fairness is not a policy. It is a daily discipline. It has to flow from the top.
Over time, I have come to believe that fairness is not a policy. It is a daily discipline. It has to flow from the top. It has to show up in hiring decisions, pay structures, promotions and feedback. It cannot just live as a framed value on a wall.
If you are in a position to influence culture, you cannot outsource fairness.
As conversations around women and work have evolved, what has genuinely improved, and where is more action needed?
The conversation has definitely evolved. Inclusion is no longer a fringe topic. Workplace policies have improved. Flexibility is more openly discussed.
But progress in conversation has not fully translated into structural parity. We still do not see enough women in boardrooms or in true decision-making roles. Even where representation is mandated, influence is not always equal.
The race itself is not designed equally. It often feels like two people running the same track, except one is carrying extra weight.
The race itself is not designed equally. It often feels like two people running the same track, except one is carrying extra weight. For many women, that weight is childcare, eldercare and invisible labour. Workplaces rarely adjust expectations to reflect that reality.
There is also a confidence gap that organisations must consciously address. Women often hesitate to apply unless they meet almost all the criteria for a role. Men are more likely to apply earlier and grow into it. If we know this, then hiring and promotion systems must adapt.
Conversations have evolved. Fairness in spirit still requires work.
Is there a project or initiative you’ve worked on related to women’s empowerment that you’re particularly proud of?
There is no public campaign attached to this. But I have consciously built my organisation around the comfort and growth of women.
Our team is almost entirely women, from fresh graduates in their early twenties to women in their thirties and forties balancing children and other responsibilities. Some are single. Some are recently divorced. Some have navigated difficult personal phases.
Empowerment, to me, is not a slogan. It is architecture. If you build the system right, people thrive without needing constant reassurance.
What matters to me is the design. Roles and KPIs are not cookie-cutter. They are structured around strengths, capabilities, and life context wherever possible. Accountability exists, but it is humane.
Empowerment, to me, is not a slogan. It is architecture. If you build the system right, people thrive without needing constant reassurance.
“Empowerment is not a campaign. It is architecture.”
What responsibility do senior leaders have in shaping more equitable workplaces, beyond statements or policies?
Senior leaders are responsible for culture. Equity is not an HR function. It is a leadership function.
Psychological safety has to be intentional. Not all homes are psychologically safe. Work should not become another place where women have to shrink or constantly self-edit.
Beyond fairness, leaders can choose to widen access. For years, women have operated at a disadvantage. Why not consciously sponsor, support and elevate them? Influence should be used generously.
Psychological safety has to be intentional. Not all homes are psychologically safe. Work should not become another place where women have to shrink or constantly self-edit.
I have seen what happens when women elevate each other. I have also seen insecurity between women. Leadership requires maturity and generosity.
Equity is not achieved through neutrality. It requires conscious action.
“Equity is not an HR function. It is a leadership function.”
What is one change you would like to see in workplaces for the next generation of women?
Equal emotional standards.
For decades, women have been labelled as emotional at work. Yet when men raise their voices or show visible anger, it is often interpreted as authority or passion.
Professionalism cannot be selectively defined.
The next generation should not inherit that double standard. Emotional regulation and composure should be leadership expectations across genders.
Equity is not about reversing dominance. It is about removing fear from competence.
Quick Hits
A trend you are cautious about
Performative celebration without measurable change. Visibility is easy. Structural change is harder.
A campaign that stayed with you
An advertisement featuring a woman truck driver. What stayed with me was not that she was shown doing the job, but how normal it felt. The bias around her was exposed quietly, without overstatement.
A piece of advice that stayed with you
“Think like a man. The world will adjust.”
It sounded blunt when I first heard it. Over time, I understood what it meant. Apply even if you are not fully ready. Negotiate. Take up space. Do not disqualify yourself before the world does.
It was not about imitation. It was about confidence without pre-approval.
