Should a garment factory need its neighbours' signatures?

Before allowing a business to operate, the government has every right to ask whether it is safe, lawful and suitable for its location. But it should not require an entrepreneur to pass a neighbourhood popularity test.

In some local business-registration processes, applicants are asked to obtain signatures or recommendations from neighbouring residents. The intention is understandable. Communities deserve protection from excessive noise, pollution, unsafe machinery, traffic, waste and other genuine disturbances.

The problem begins when the same requirement is applied broadly, without considering the actual risk or impact of the business.

A garment factory is not the same as a stone crusher, a chemical plant or another high-impact industry. If a garment manufacturing unit complies with zoning, fire safety, waste management, labour, noise and environmental requirements, its approval should be decided using those measurable standards.

A neighbour’s signature is not a technical assessment.

A person may refuse to sign because of a personal disagreement, a property dispute, fear of future inconvenience, business competition, or simply an unwillingness to become involved. None of these reasons necessarily proves that the proposed business would harm the community. Yet such a refusal can delay or prevent a legitimate investment.

What manufacturing can create

Our family established Trishakti Apparel in Gaidakot–6, Nawalparasi (East), in 2023. Today the company supports around 100 people through direct and indirect employment.

Building the company has shown me how much effort is required to turn an industrial idea into a functioning operation. Entrepreneurs must arrange capital, machinery, workers, training, registrations, taxation, compliance and a market — all before knowing whether the business will succeed.

Government oversight is necessary. Arbitrary barriers are not.

This is not an argument for exempting garment factories from inspections or community responsibilities. Every factory should be accountable for the effects it creates. But accountability should be based on evidence, defined standards and actual violations — not on an applicant’s ability to collect signatures.

A more reasonable system

The government should review this process and introduce a risk-based system for business establishment.

Low-impact businesses that satisfy published technical requirements should not need prior consent from every neighbouring resident. Where public participation is necessary, authorities could issue a notice and provide a fixed period for evidence-based objections.

Any objection should identify a legitimate concern — such as unsafe access, excessive noise, pollution or a violation of zoning rules. The responsible government office should then inspect the site and decide the matter impartially.

The revised system should include:

1. Clear risk categories for different industries.
2. Published safety and environmental requirements.
3. Notification instead of mandatory consent for low-impact businesses.
4. Time-bound inspections and registration decisions.
5. Written reasons when an application is rejected.
6. A practical appeal process against arbitrary decisions.

A review committee comprising government officials, industry representatives, technical experts and community stakeholders could determine which industries genuinely require neighbourhood consultation.

Standards, not signatures

Nepal needs businesses that manufacture locally, create employment and develop export capacity. When lawful entrepreneurs are delayed by uncertain or subjective procedures, some abandon their ideas while others take their capital and skills elsewhere.

Community protection and entrepreneurship do not have to oppose each other. A well-designed system can protect both.

A garment factory should be required to prove that it is safe, responsible and compliant. It should not be required to prove that it is popular.

I respectfully urge the relevant federal, provincial and local authorities to review the neighbour-signature process and replace blanket requirements with clear, proportionate and evidence-based standards.