2013 04 14 FSC and UNGP

FSC and the Human Rights
How Does the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria comply with
United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)?
P. Michael Øllgaard, Forester1
Disclaimer:
This paper lines up general observations on the gaps between the FSC Framework and the UNGPs. It has
been prepared during a short CSR training and does not attempt to be covering the entire FSC
Framework. Moreover it attempts to highlight, that gaps exist between the FSC Framework and the
UNGPs.
1. Executive Summary
FSC has achieved a tremendous development towards responsible forest management during the last 20
years. The UNGPs gives now FSC the opportunity to further extend the impact of the certification through
a well-developed tool assisting the organisations in the process towards respecting the human rights in
all their doings.
Any entity, that produces or trade with forest products should be responsible and be able to prove, that
no humans or nature has been harmed in the process of bringing the product to the market. The FSC
label is the most frequent certification used to prove this.
The FSC shall ‘promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable
management of the world’s forests’ (FSC 2012).
Any entity should act towards a prosperous society build on social sustainability is respecting the human
rights. The UNGPs is a powerful tool to reach compliance with the Bill of Rights. The UNGPs is a global
standard that outlines how State should protect and business should respect Human Rights (OHCHR
2011).
So why should FSC comply with UNGPs?
Any entity should be expected to comply with UNGPs. Social benefit can only be achieved if adverse
impact on human rights is mitigated. An entity producing or trading FSC certified forest products or a
customer buying a FSC certified product should be sure it has been produced by an entity respecting the
human rights. Today this is not necessarily the case as the following paper highlights with some few
examples.
Main findings of the analysis of the FSC Framework:
1. The FSC Framework seems in the language to be far from UNGPs. It may be the intention that
FSC expects the Organisation to respect all human rights – as it could be understood from the
FSC Principle 1 (see 3) – but it is far from clear expressed.
1
P. Michael Øllgaard is a specialist on Community Based Forestry and Natural Resource Management, civil society
development and forestry training issues (http://dk.linkedin.com/in/ollgaardpm). This paper was written during the CSR
Innovation Lab – a course by GlobalSCR (http://www.global-csr.com) in Copenhagen April 2013
Poul Michael Øllgaard Page 1 of 14 21 November 2015

2. The nature and objective of the FSC Framework is to ‘provide a system for voluntary
accreditation and independent third-party certification’ (FSC 2012). Forest based products from a
certain geographical area (the Management Unit) are certified so the customer can see they
have been produced without harm to human and nature.
3. FSC Principle 1 states that ‘the Organisation shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations and
nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements’. So which are the
applicable laws? See 4.
4. Applicable law is defined in the ‘Glossary of Terms’ in FSC 2012 and ‘means applicable to the
Organisation as a legal person or business enterprise in or for the benefit of the Management
Unit2
and those laws which affect the implementation of the FSC Principles and Criteria’. FSC is
hence per this definition limited to the Management Unit.
5. Regarding the Rights of Workers the conclusion is that the Organisation may only have to comply
with FSC for the specific Management Unit.
6. ‘The Organisation shall identify the indigenous peoples that exist within the Management Unit…’
The focus is limited to the Management Unit and not as UNGPs would expect apply to all activities
of the Organisation wherever in the World.
7. FSC follows the outline in Global Compact saying the management shall be social,
environmentally and economically sustainable. Corruption is mentioned separate
8. The majority of the Human Rights are not mentioned specifically.
9. Human Rights are covered generally as the Organisations shall comply with national and
international laws. If a country has not ratified a certain treaty, convention or agreement
important to the FSC Framework – it is difficult to see if the Organisation must adhere to the
rules anyhow.
10. The Organisation shall publish a commitment regarding bribery and corruption and commit to
follow anti-corruption legislation where this exists. If anti-corruption legislation is absent, the
Organisation shall implement other anti-corruption measures. It is understood this principle
applies for the (entire) Organisation – not only for the activities related to The Management Unit.
11. The focus for an FSC certification is the Management Unit. All management in a certain
Management Unit and the surroundings affected by the management must comply with the rules.
It seems not to be necessary that the Organisation AS SUCH must comply with the Principles and
Criteria of FSC in other areas of interventions for which they do not want an FSC certification.
However FSC can disassociate an Organisation, which undertakes ‘unacceptable activities’.
12. If national laws do not recognise indigenous peoples rights the Organisation has for the
Management Unit to treat them as local communities for the purpose of the FSC Principles and
Criteria.
Overall recommendation: The UNGPs on Business and Human Rights should be an integrated part of
the FSC Framework. As a prerequisite to treat an application for certification of a certain area FSC should
request the applying Organisation for all its activities to comply with UNGPs. The Organisation should
communicate a policy commitment according to UNGP 16 and conduct the due diligence process
according to UNGP 17. As the FSC Framework in its present outline, focus on The Management Unit there
is no guarantee, that The Organisation managing The Management Unit in other management units or
other business areas/activities adhere to the FSC Framework, UNGPs or at least Global Compact. Other
2
Underlining by the Author

business entities, organisations, customers, etc. who the Organisation deals with can then be sure it is an
organisation adhering to all international standards according to UNGPs. Further everyone trading or
buying any product from that organisation should be sure it has been produced according the
requirements both in FSC and in UNGPs. It is further recommended to reformulate FSC regulations
regarding grievance mechanisms and access to remedy so they apply for all social, environmental and
economic issues.
2. Introduction
FSC has achieved a tremendous development towards responsible forest management during the last 20
years. The UNGPs gives now FSC the opportunity to further extend the impact of the certification through
a well-developed tool assisting the organisations in the process towards respecting the human rights in
all their doings.
Any entity (company/business/organisation/project), that produces or trade with forest products (timber,
paper, chipboards, plywood, wooden furniture, medicinal plants and other non-timber-forest-products
(NTFPs), etc.) should be responsible and be able to prove, that no humans or nature has been harmed in
the process of bringing the product to the market. The FSC label is the most frequent certification used to
prove this.
FSC
In 1993 the Forest Stewardship Council A.C. (FSC) was established as a follow-up to the
Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, 1992. FSC shall ‘promote environmentally appropriate,
socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests’. The latest
version of the detailed framework with principles, criteria, definitions, interpretations, etc.
has been approved in February 2012 (FSC 2012).
Any entity should act responsible in relation to social, environmental and economic sustainability. The
most important step towards a prosperous society build on social sustainability is respecting the human
rights. The UNGPs is a powerful tool to reach compliance with the Bill of Rights.
UNGPs
The United Nation Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is a global
standard that outlines how State should protect and business should respect Human
Rights (OHCHR 2011). It was endorsed in June 2011 by the United Nations Human
Rights Council.
So why should FSC comply with UNGPs?
Any entity should be expected to comply with UNGPs. FSC has the triple bottom line (environmental,
social and economic sustainability) as base for its framework. Social benefit can only be achieved if
adverse impact to social issues – and here foremost to the human rights – is mitigated. If the entity
produces or trades forest products with FSC certification, it should be sure the product has come into
existence through processes respecting the human rights as defined by the UNGPs. Likewise a customer
buying a FSC certified product should be sure it has been produced by an entity respecting the human
rights. Today this is not necessarily the case as the following paper highlights with some few examples.

Terms used in this paper:
Human Rights – All the human rights as described in the Bill of Rights composed of 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the two conventions ICESCR – International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights and ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both from
1966 and the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work (1998);
FSC Framework – The Forest Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria3
and all underlying documents
in the latest version from 2012;
UNGPs – United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (OHCHR 2011)
The Organisation – Entity or person holding or applying for certification of a certain Management Unit it
is or will manage (FSC 2012)
The Management Unit – A spatial area submitted for FSC certification (FSC 2012)
Main findings of the analysis of the FSC Framework:
1. The FSC Framework seems in the language to be far from UNGPs. It may be the intention that
FSC expects the Organisation to respect all human rights – as it could be understood from the
FSC Principle 1 (see 3) – but it is far from clear expressed.
2. The nature and objective of the FSC Framework is to ‘provide a system for voluntary
accreditation and independent third-party certification’ (FSC 2012). Forest based products from a
certain geographical area (the Management Unit) are certified so the customer can see they have
been produced without harm to human and nature.
3. Principle 1 states that ‘the Organisation shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations and
nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements’. So which are the
applicable laws? See 4.
4. Applicable law is defined in the ‘Glossary of Terms’ in FSC 2012 and ‘means applicable to The
Organisation as a legal person or business enterprise in or for the benefit of the Management
Unit4
and those laws which affect the implementation of the FSC Principles and Criteria’. FSC is
hence per this definition limited to the Management Unit.
5. Rights of Workers are explicit mentioned in FSC 2012 Principles 2. While reading the six
subsections of Principle 2, it could be understood, the rights of the workers apply to all workers of
the Organisation wherever they are posted. This would bring FSC nearer to UNGPs on this one
point. However analysis of Principle 2.5 brings in doubt. Here it is stated, that ‘the Organisation
shall demonstrate that workers have …supervision to … implement the management plan …’ In
the ‘Glossary of Terms’ it can then be read that the Management Plan is a ‘collection of
documents … that describe … the activities carried out … within or in relation to the Management
UnitError: Reference source not found …’ The conclusion is again that the Organisation may only
have to comply with FSC for the specific Management Unit.
6. In Principle 3.1 of FSC 2012 it is clearly stated that ‘The Organisation shall identify the indigenous
peoples that exist within the Management Unit…’ Again the focus is limited to the Management
3
FSC Framework – The FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (FSC-STD-01-001 V5-0 EN) and all
underlying documents outlining the FSC rules, definitions, implementation guidelines, FSC International Generic
Indicators, etc. (https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htm)
4
Underlining by the Author

Unit and not as UNGPs would expect apply to all activities of the Organisation wherever in the
World.
7. The FSC Principles and Criteria seem to be written with the ten principles of Global Compact in
mind. The management shall be social, environmentally and economically sustainable and
corruption is mentioned separate (Principle 1.7 of FSC 2012).
8. The majority of the Human Rights are not mentioned specifically.
9. Human Rights are covered generally as the Organisations shall comply with national and
international laws. This seems to be limited to ‘ratified’ treaties, conventions and agreements. If a
country has not ratified a certain treaty, convention or agreement important to the FSC
Framework – it is difficult to see if the Organisation must adhere to the rules anyhow.
10. According to Principle 1.7 - The Organisation shall publish a commitment regarding bribery and
corruption and commit to follow anti-corruption legislation where this exists. If anti-corruption
legislation is absent, The Organisation shall implement other anti-corruption measures. It is
understood this principle applies for the (entire) Organisation – not only for the activities related
to The Management Unit. However it is recommended to rewrite the principle and explicit request
The Organisation to comply with internationally agreed rules on anti-corruption for all activities of
The Organisation whatever it is or wherever in the World they are carried out.
11. The focus for an FSC certification is the Management Unit. All management in a certain
Management Unit and the surroundings affected by the management must comply with the rules.
It seems not to be necessary that the Organisation AS SUCH must comply with the Principles and
Criteria of FSC in other areas of interventions for which they do not want an FSC certification.
However FSC can disassociate an Organisation, which undertakes ‘unacceptable activities’
according to FSC 2011.
12. If national laws do not recognise indigenous peoples rights the Organisation has for the
Management Unit to treat them as local communities for the purpose of the FSC Principles and
Criteria. Here the FSC Framework has rules in place, if the national laws are not covering the
issue.
3. UNGPs and FSC – Any Common Principles and Criteria?
In the following chapter you find a short description of issues common to the UNGPs and the
FSC Framework. The numbering follows the numbering of the UNGPs.
11. Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid
infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts
with which they are involved.
12. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally
recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International
Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the
International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work.
13. The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own
activities, and address such impacts when they occur;
(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their
operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not
contributed to those impacts.
There are several FSC Principles that can be linked to these UNGPs:
• FSC Principle 2: Workers Rights and Employment Conditions (see under UNGPs 11/12)
• FSC Principle 3: Indigenous Peoples Rights (see under UNGPs 11/12)
• FSC Principle 4: Community Relations – ‘The Organisation shall contribute to maintaining or
enhancing the social and economic wellbeing of local communities’ (FSC 2012) The Organisation,
through engagement with local communities, shall take action to identify, avoid and mitigate
significant negative social, environmental and economic impacts of its management activities on
affected communities’ (FSC 2012). Negative social, environmental and economic impact can be
linked to several Human Rights. In the context of forest management in an area with a local
community (or indigenous/tribal population) there can easily occur activities with negative impact
on the right to:
o Adequate housing
o Health – including clean water and sanitation
o Adequate food
o Material interest from one’s invention (mainly traditional knowledge on use of non-
timber-forest-products including medicinal plants)
o Minority rights to culture, religious practice and language (religious places are often found
in forests –and outsiders may even stand in front of them and not see them)
o Freedom of information
o – And more, especially if the community is involved in the management as workers, etc…
• FSC Principle 9: High Conservation Values (HCV) – issue is overlapping with notes to FSC
Principle 4. Especially to be mentioned ‘HCV 5: Community needs. Sites and resources
fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for
livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc.), identified through engagement with these communities
or indigenous peoples’ (FSC 2012).
14. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all
enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure.
Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of the means through which enterprises meet that
responsibility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of the enterprise’s
adverse human rights impacts.
As mentioned under UNGPs 11/12 the Organisation shall comply with all applicable laws, etc. This applies
for all organisations wanting an FSC Certification. FSC has, however also a ‘rubber paragraph’
comparable to the ‘scale and complexity of the means’. Under the FSC Preamble chapter 4 it is stated
that ‘Depending on scale, intensity and risk, the actions required to comply with the Principles and

Criteria may vary from one Organisation to another. The concept of scale, intensity and risk applies to
almost all Criteria’ (FSC 2012). The ‘Glossary of Terms’ in FSC 2012 has following definitions:
‘Scale - A measure of the extent to which a management activity or event affects an environmental
value or a management unit, in time or space. An activity with a small or low spatial scale affects only a
small proportion of the forest each year, an activity with a small or low temporal scale occurs only at long
intervals.’
Scale in this context seems only to address environmental issues – and not social and economic issues.
However, if the management activity only affects a small area it may also only have little adverse impact
the human rights of people affected. BUT, it can have severe adverse impact if for instance an important
religious site is situated exactly in that ‘small proportion of the forest’.
‘Intensity – A measure of the force, severity or strength of a management activity or other occurrence
affecting the nature of the activity’s impacts’
Likewise low intensity activities or occurrence may have severe adverse impact on social, environmental
or economic issues, especially if they last over a longer period.
‘Risk – The probability of an unacceptable negative impact arising from any activity in the Management
Unit combined with its seriousness in terms of consequences’
Recommendation: The term scale, intensity and risk should be redefined to cover all aspects of social,
environmental and economic issues. It is important that severe adverse impact of small scale or small
intensity activities easily can be addressed. The definition of risk seems to cover all what is necessary
also to address human rights issues.
15. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should
have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including:
(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights;
(b) A human rights due-diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how
they address their impacts on human rights;
(c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to
which they contribute.
16. As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, business
enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement
of policy that:
(a) Is approved at the most senior level of the business enterprise;
(b) Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;
(c) Stipulates the enterprise’s human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and
other parties directly linked to its operations, products or services;
(d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business
partners and other relevant parties;
(e) Is reflected in operational policies and procedures necessary to embed it throughout the
business enterprise.
17. In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse
human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. The
process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and

acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed.
Human rights due diligence:
(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or
contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations,
products or services by its business relationships;
(b) Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human
rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations;
(c) Should be ongoing, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the
business enterprise’s operations and operating context evolve.
The FSC Framework can only indirect be said to expect a policy commitment regarding respect for human
rights. The FSC Principle and Criteria 1.8 insist on a policy commitment to the FSC Framework: ‘The
Organisation shall demonstrate a long-term commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and Criteria in
the Management Unit, and to related FSC Policies and Standards. A statement of this commitment shall
be contained in a publicly available document made freely available’ (FSC 2012). This principle could
easily be extended to apply for all human rights
Further, the following can be found in the subdocument ‘Policy for the Association of Organisations with
FSC’ (FSC 2011), where it is stated ‘Violation of traditional and human rights in forestry operations’ and
‘Violation of any of the ILO Core Conventions’ will cause disassociation with FSC.
In the same subdocument FSC has described a due diligence system to ‘to evaluate the existence of
objective evidence that an organisation is directly or indirectly involved in any … unacceptable activities
…’ (FSC 2011)
As unacceptable activities the document lists:
‘a) Illegal logging or the trade in illegal wood or forest products
b) Violation of traditional and human rights in forestry operations
c) Destruction of high conservation values in forestry operations
d) Significant conversion of forests to plantations or non-forest use
e) Introduction of genetically modified organisms in forestry operations
f) Violation of any of the ILO Core Conventions’ (FSC 2011)
‘FSC will only allow its association with organisations that are not directly or indirectly involved in [any of
the above mentioned] unacceptable activities’ (FSC 2011).
The rapid assessment of the FSC Framework done here, gives the impression that those unacceptable
activities applies for the entire organisation applying for association with FSC and hence be able to apply
for certifications. It is however – taken the importance of UNGPs into consideration – recommended that
FSC takes the rules from FSC 2011 into the main document (Preamble of FSC 2012) and makes them
conditional to be able to apply for certifications. It should also be observed, that the document speaks of
‘violations … in forestry operation’. This will not satisfy the UNGPs, which insist on respect for human
rights in all activities. Further it should be noted, that the above described due diligence process is
carried out by FSC and not the Organisation. Closing the gap to UNGPs will require a due diligence to be
carried out by each organisation wanting to associate with FSC.
That a due diligence process must be ongoing will not conflict with the FSC Framework. In Principle 7.4 it
is stated that ‘The Organisation shall update and revise periodically the management planning and

procedural documentation to incorporate the results of monitoring and evaluation, stakeholder
engagement or new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental,
social and economic circumstances.’ In this principle, the need for a due diligence process regarding
Human Rights can easily be added.
‘Remedy’ is a term not very much used in the FSC Framework.
The FSC Principles 4.6 stipulates a compensation for certain impact of The Organisations activities stating
it ‘shall have mechanisms for resolving grievances and providing fair compensation to local communities
and individuals with regard to the impacts of management activities of The Organisation.
FSC Principle and Criteria 6.7 states ‘The Organisation shall avoid negative impacts on water quality and
quantity and mitigate and remedy those that occur.’
So at least for the ‘right to clean water’, the Organisation’ shall remedy any negative impact.
An instance of rules for remediation was found in a subdocument FSC Policy on the Excision of Areas
from the Scope of Certification (FSC 2004) outlining the FSC policy for areas, that are inside or bordering
the Management Unit, but where it is beyond the control of the manager to comply with FSC. ‘The
specific negative impacts (ecological, environmental, social, economic) of the uncontrolled activity shall
be analysed and the results of the analysis shall be documented;’ and ‘The specific actions to be taken to
remedy the negative impacts identified shall be defined;’ and ‘Affected sites shall be monitored to
evaluate the effect of the remedial actions’.
It is recommended that FSC includes in the main document FSC 2012 a chapter in the Preamble outlining
clear rules for remediation of adverse impacts on human rights and the other issues important to the FSC
Framework. Maybe it is even necessary to establish a separate chapter under Principles and Criteria
dealing with remediation.
18. In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any
actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either
through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should:
(a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise;
(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant
stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context
of the operation.
There has been found no indication, that ‘human rights expertise’ should be involved in preparing any of
the documents in the FSC application procedure.
Involvement through consultations is mentioned related to the Management Unit, where the Organisation
shall carry out various consultations with potentially affected group and stakeholders according to FSC
2012. Some examples are shown in the following:
• FSC Principle 1.6 – The Organisation shall identify, prevent and resolve disputes over issues of
statutory or customary law, which can be settled out of court in a timely manner, through
engagement with affected stakeholders.
• FSC Principle 3.1 – The Organisation shall identify the indigenous peoples that exist within the
Management Unit or are affected by management activities. The Organisation shall then, through
engagement with these indigenous peoples, identify their rights of tenure, their rights of access
to and use of forest resources and ecosystem services, their customary rights and legal rights

and obligations, that apply within the Management Unit. The Organisation shall also identify areas
where these rights are contested.
• FSC Principle 4.1 – The Organisation shall identify the local communities that exist within the
Management Unit and hose
that are affected by
management activities. The
Organisation shall then,
through engagement with
these local communities,
identify their rights of tenure,
their rights of access to and
use of forest resources and
ecosystem services, their
customary rights and legal
rights and obligations, which
apply within the Management
Unit.
Stakeholder meeting in Nipataco, Ancuabe District, Mozambique May 2005 (Photo by the author)
FSC Principle 7.6 – The Organisation shall, proportionate to scale, intensity and risk of management
activities, proactively and transparently engage affected stakeholders in its management planning and
monitoring processes, and shall engage interested stakeholders on request.
FSC Principle 9.1 – The Organisation, through engagement with affected stakeholders, interested
stakeholders and other means and sources, shall assess and record the presence and status of the …
High Conservation Values in the Management Unit …
19. In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises
should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions
and processes, and take appropriate action.
(a) Effective integration requires that:
(i) Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function
within the business enterprise;
(ii) Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective
responses to such impacts.
(b) Appropriate action will vary according to:
(i) Whether the business enterprise causes or contributes to an adverse impact, or whether it
is involved solely because the impact is directly linked to its operations, products or services
by a business relationship;
(ii) The extent of its leverage in addressing the adverse impact
Indirectly the Organisation wanting to associate with FSC is expected to follow this UNGP 19. However it
is only spelt out for a few environment related human rights. To bring accordance between FSC and
UNGPs the UNGP principle 19 should be incorporated in the FSC Framework in a way similar as
recommended under ‘Remedy’.

20. In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business
enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should:
(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;
(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected
stakeholders.
In the FSC Framework, tracking is only a tool related to documentation regarding forest produce (FSC
Principle 8.5).
21. In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises
should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by
or on behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating
contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they
address them. In all instances, communications should:
(a) Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprise’s human rights impacts and that are
accessible to its intended audiences;
(b) Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprise’s response
to the particular human rights impact involved;
(c) In turn not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of
commercial confidentiality.
The FSC Framework uses the term communication under engagement and defines this in ‘Glossary of
Terms’ as:
‘Engaging or engagement: The process by which The Organisation communicates, consults and/or
provides for the participation of interested and/or affected stakeholders ensuring that their concerns,
desires, expectations, needs, rights and opportunities are considered in the establishment,
implementation and updating of the management plan’ (FSC 2012).
Several instances of making documents and results publicly available are expected in the FSC Framework
(FSC 2012). This includes the policy statement regarding adhering to the FSC Principles and Criteria,
commitment to no-corruption, policies and objectives regarding the Management Plan for the
Management Unit and results of the monitoring process. Addressing human rights impacts is still to be
included in the FSC Framework.
22. Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse
impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate
processes.
The few instances of ‘Remedy’ in the FSC Framework and my recommendation have been mentioned
above under UNGPs 15/16/17.
23. In all contexts, business enterprises should:
(a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights,
wherever they operate;
(b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced
with conflicting requirements;

(c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal
compliance issue wherever they operate.
See under UNGPs 11/12 for discussion on the issues raised in UNGP 23.
24. Where it is necessary to prioritize actions to address actual and potential adverse human
rights impacts, business enterprises should first seek to prevent and mitigate those that are
most severe or where delayed response would make them irremediable.
There is no such prioritising treated in the FSC Framework. This UNGP could be included as a FSC
Principle.
29. To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business
enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms
for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted.
30. Industry, multi-stakeholder and other collaborative initiatives that are based on respect
for human rights-related standards should ensure that effective grievance mechanisms are
available.
For workers rights a grievance system is established in FSC Principle 2.6, which states: ‘The Organisation
through engagement with workers shall have mechanisms for resolving grievances and for providing fair
compensation to workers for loss or damage to property, occupational diseases, or occupational injuries
sustained while working for The Organisation’ (FSC 2012).
As mentioned under ‘Remedy’ a grievance system is foreseen related to the affected community (FSC
Principle 4.6).
The text of UNGP 31 has not been included here, but the criteria outlined therein, should be adhered to
by FSC while revising the FSC Framework to bring it into accordance with UNGPs.
Recommendation: The grievance system should be extended to cover all social, environmental and
economical issues including adverse human rights impact arising from the activities of the Organisation.
Maybe it is even necessary to establish a separate chapter under Principles and Criteria dealing with the
grievance system.
4. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
One of the factors behind the philosophy and the history of the FSC is concern about human rights
violation of indigenous people and local communities where timber is extracted from natural forests.
However, the main issue of FSC is responsible forest management. There is as such nothing
contradictionary between United Nations Guiding Principles and the FSC Framework. The FSC Framework
does simply not focus on human rights but on forest management. As the philosophy behind the two
frameworks is similar, it is not difficult to imagine how FSC Framework could be reformulated
incorporating the UNGPs.
Recommendations
A rapid method to reach compliance with UNGPs could be to include the OHCHR 2011 in the list of
documents, which forms the FSC and write in the beginning of the Preamble:
“The corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the access to remedy as outlined by
the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are part of this document. All
organisations who want to associate with FSC and apply for any certification, submit a policy

statement according to UNGP 16 and a report on the results of a due diligence process
according to UNGP 17 covering the activities of the entire organisation.”
Second and further step to be taken during the next revision of the FSC Framework is to incorporate the
UNGPs in the FSC Principles and Criteria. This paper contains some few recommendations for this work,
but is in no way comprehensive. The recommendations are not numbered to avoid being seen as a
prioritised list:
• Rewrite the principle and explicit request The Organisation to comply with internationally agreed
rules on anti-corruption for all activities of The Organisation whatever it is or wherever in the
World they are carried out.
• FSC includes in the main document FSC 2012 a chapter in the Preamble outlining clear rules for
remediation of adverse impacts on human rights and the other issues important to the FSC
Framework. Maybe it is even necessary to establish a separate chapter under Principles and
Criteria dealing with remediation.
• The grievance system should be extended to cover all social, environmental and economical
issues including adverse human rights impact arising from the activities of the Organisation.
Maybe it is even necessary to establish a separate chapter under Principles and Criteria dealing
with the grievance system.
Overall recommendation
The UNGPs on Business and Human Rights should be an integrated part of the FSC Framework. As a
prerequisite to treat an application for certification of a certain area FSC should request the applying
Organisation for all its activities to comply with UNGPs. The Organisation should communicate a policy
commitment according to UNGP 16 and conduct the due diligence process according to UNGP 17. As the
FSC Framework in its present outline, focus on The Management Unit there is no guarantee, that The
Organisation managing The Management Unit in other management units or other business
areas/activities adhere to the FSC Framework, UNGPs or at least Global Compact. Other business entities,
organisations, customers, etc. who the Organisation deals with can then be sure it is an organisation
adhering to all international standards according to UNGPs. Further everyone trading or buying any
product from that organisation should be sure it has been produced according the requirements both in
FSC and in UNGPs. It is further recommended to reformulate FSC regulations regarding grievance mecha-
nisms and access to remedy so they apply for all social, environmental and economic issues.
Literature
OHCHR (2011), UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations
“‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”, 21 March 2011, p. 13-17,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
OHCHR (2012), United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Interpretive Guide
(2012) p. 1-31, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR.PUB.12.2_En.pdf
FSC (2004), FSC Policy on the Excision of Areas from the Scope of Certification (FSC-POL-20-003) EN
https://ic.fsc.org/fsc-pol-20-003-policy-on-excision.441-3.htm
FSC (2012), The FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (FSC-STD-01-001 V5-0 EN)
https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htm

FSC (2011), Policy for the Association of Organisations with FSC (FSC-POL-01-004 V2-0 EN)
https://ic.fsc.org/download.fsc-pol-01-004.155.htm
OECD (2011), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, OECD Publishing
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115415-en
Who has the right to the natural resources in the community land? Here a Chinese contractor
is removing high valuable hardwood from the Nanune Forest in Southern Ancuabe District,
Mozambique Aug 2010 (Photo by the author)

2013 04 14 FSC and UNGP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2013 04 14 FSC and UNGP

Similar to 2013 04 14 FSC and UNGP (20)

2013 04 14 FSC and UNGP