Conservationists say the certification is “greenwashing, not sustainability”
Press release: 12th October 2026
Serious questions are being raised about the credibility of Responsible Wood (RW) after a growing body of evidence suggests the Australian timber certification scheme is failing to protect forests, misrepresenting environmental performance, and allowing certified companies to continue operating even when they repeatedly break certification standards and the law.
The recent case of Fellas coupe in the Strzelecki Ranges adds weight to these concerns. Fellas coupe is managed by Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP); a company certified by both the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Responsible Wood (RW) sustainability schemes. Gippsland Forest Guardians made complaints to both certifying bodies over serious environmental concerns on the site in Turtons Creek, Victoria, and the difference in the way these bodies investigated the complaints was revealing.
Image: Fellas coupe, Turtons Creek Victoria.
Independent auditing under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) found that the logging company HVP failed multiple requirements over multiple years, including serious breaches relating to the protection of rainforest and threatened species, and for their lack of engagement with local communities. The FSC audits involved many hours of meetings with Gippsland Forest Guardians and included on-site visits. Auditors identified non-conformances with FSC standards and required corrective actions, highlighting problems in the company’s environmental management. The result of these audits contributed to HVP agreeing to stop harvesting Mountain ash and to regenerate logged areas to be native forest. HVP will no longer manage the coupe for timber production and will instead seek permanent environment protection for the parcel of Crown land. Fellas coupe will become part of the larger conservation area at Turtons creek.
By contrast, Responsible Wood’s audit of the same situation” found no non-conformances with its own standards, and instead gave the company a clean bill of health. Responsible Wood did not visit the logging site. Their response to the Gippsland Forest Guardians complaint was this paragraph:
“HVP Plantations has addressed the issues you raised, and we are satisfied that they are taking appropriate corrective action. They will continue to maintain their BSI registration, and we will monitor the situation during our scheduled continuing assessment visits, taking any necessary action as appropriate.”
This stark discrepancy has alarmed environmental groups who say it exposes the weakness of the Responsible Wood standard and its apparent inability to independently scrutinise industry behaviour.
The most serious of the FSC auditors reports into HVP and Fellas coupe, (available on the Gippsland Forest Guardians website), provides detailed evidence of failures identified as a result of FSC oversight. It stands in sharp contrast to Responsible Wood's single paragraph.
The problem is not isolated. VicForests, the discredited and now defunct Victorian government logging corporation, maintained both Responsible Wood and PEFC certification for years despite being repeatedly found by the courts to have broken environmental laws relating to threatened species protection and habitat destruction. The ability for a company to retain Responsible Wood certification while being found unlawful in the Supreme Court has become a key example of what critics describe as the “rubber stamp” nature of the Responsible Wood scheme.
Researchers including Professor David Lindenmayer have shown Responsible Wood and its international partner, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) have weak standards that do not reflect ecological science, do not safeguard threatened species, and do not meaningfully regulate logging operations. Professor Lindenmayer’s research has found that Australian native forest logging certified under Responsible Wood has included logging of irreplaceable forests, despite the certification’s claims of sustainability.
Stuart Inchley with one of Fellas coupe’s critically endangered Slender Tree-ferns
Gippsland Forest Guardians spokesperson Stuart Inchley said "The Fellas Coupe example shows why Responsible Wood cannot be trusted by consumers, communities or businesses seeking genuine environmental assurance". We had heard that Responsible Wood was regarded as having weaker environmental standards than the Forest Stewardship Council but we were still shocked at what we have seen. We believe Responsible Wood’s handling of the Fellas Coupe case shows their certification cannot be trusted".
"When FSC auditors identify serious failures whilst at the same time Responsible Wood claims that everything is fine, tells you exactly what this scheme is designed to do — protect industry, not forests. The Responsible Wood brand, and the PEFC label, should be avoided by anyone who wants real sustainability” he said.
The Gippsland Forest Guardians are calling for supermarkets, retailers, architects and consumers to stop relying on Responsible Wood and PEFC logos.
Contact: Stuart Inchley
Email: [email protected]