- Indigenous and local communities continue to grapple with the long-term consequences of deforestation and other harms, often at the hands of companies that have been excluded from sustainability certification programs, a new commentary from the Forest Stewardship Council argues.
- Their exclusion is where accountability often ends, since companies removed from certification schemes are rarely required to take meaningful steps to repair the social or environmental damage they caused.
- “Remedy is not about erasing the past, it’s about facing it, and ensuring those affected are meaningfully involved in the path forward,” the FSC’s chief system integrity officer writes.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of Mongabay.
For decades, environmental, social and governance systems have focused on stopping harm before it happens. Standards, certification schemes and corporate sustainability policies have all aimed to deter destruction, especially in forests and other high-risk ecosystems. But the uncomfortable truth is this: while these systems have helped reduce future damage, they remain largely unequipped to deal with the harm that has already occurred.
Across the globe, Indigenous and local communities continue to grapple with the long-term consequences of deforestation and other harms, often at the hands of companies that have since been excluded from sustainability frameworks. Yet exclusion is where accountability often ends. Companies are removed from certification or policy schemes, but are rarely required to take meaningful steps to repair the social or environmental damage they caused.
This creates a structural gap in global sustainability, a growing disconnect between corporate accountability systems and the people and ecosystems they are meant to protect. Environmental justice cannot be achieved through prevention alone. It must also address historical harm, through remedy that is credible, community-driven, and verifiable.
Remedy isn’t a new concept. In the human rights space, it has long been recognized, most notably by the United Nations, as a process that includes acknowledging past harm, providing redress, and taking steps to restore dignity and prevent recurrence.
It’s time we bring the same level of commitment to environmental governance. Remedy is not about erasing the past, it’s about facing it, and ensuring those affected are meaningfully involved in the path forward.
One example of how this can work in practice is the approach we at the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have developed through our remedy framework, which establishes a process for companies to address past environmental and social harm before being considered for reentry into certification. It includes third-party verification, engagement with affected communities, and a requirement for demonstrable steps toward repair. While not perfect, and certainly not a shortcut, it marks a real shift away from simply excluding companies and toward holding them accountable through clear conditions and structured steps for repair.
Still, remedy remains the exception, not the rule. Most sustainability systems are not set up to handle complex, historical harm. Many lack the tools, incentives, or political will to pursue meaningful redress. And in some cases, there is active resistance to revisiting the past, for fear of opening legal or reputational risk.
But remedy should not be seen as a threat. It’s an opportunity for companies to rebuild trust, for communities to regain agency, and for sustainability systems to evolve toward greater legitimacy.
As the world reckons with the legacy of environmental harm — from biodiversity loss to climate injustice — remedy must become part of the global toolkit. It won’t be easy. But it is necessary if we are serious about justice for forests, for people, and for the future.
Marc Jessel is the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) chief system integrity officer and part of the organization’s leadership team.
Banner image: Flooded forest in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: As the world scrambles for new sources of gold during these uncertain economic times, Mongabay reporter Elodie Toto joins the podcast to explain how that is harming forests in the Congo, listen here:
See related coverage of FSC’s remedy framework:
Hope and frustration as Indonesia pilots FSC’s logging remedy framework
More forestry coverage:
From deforestation to renewal: Why reforestation isn’t just about trees
EUDR risk classifications omit governance & enforcement failures, critics say
Credits
