Forest Stewardship Council Forest Certification Impacts: The Case of Lithuania

Abstract

The new Forestry Strategy and Green Deal rely on sustainable forest management. Forest certification helps advance this objective. This study aimed to assess the social, ecological, and economic impacts of forest certification on forest management. The study presents an assessment methodology for the impact of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard’s application, and, based on it, a case study on forest management practices in Lithuania. This study helps clarify what constitutes impact in the context of forest certification and how it can be operationalised using indicators. The findings show that the major difficulties encountered were related to social factors regarding the FSC standard: the level of knowledge of employees and contractors of forest management organisations about the requirements of the forest stewardship standard, and community relations were not in all cases sufficient. The economic impact of the standard is positive, encouraging the use of local forest-related services and indicating that the price of FSC-certified wood is higher than that of non-certified wood. The study contributes to the scientific literature by proposing an indicator-based framework for assessing FSC implementation and by situating the Lithuanian case within the broader European context of forest certification governance.

1. Introduction

Forestry activity was assessed as unsatisfying after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1993 [1]. In 1994, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was established to enable forest organisations to establish and hold specific features that meet the standard’s sustainable requirements [1]. FSC is the most prominent certification scheme that could help maintain forestry’s economic, social, and environmental benefits [2]. Consumers may be willing to pay a price premium for certified timber, which can benefit certified companies [2]. More than 172 million hectares of forests worldwide are FSC-certified [3], representing about 4.2% of the global forest area. In Europe, 68 million hectares are FSC-certified [3], representing approximately 6.5% of Europe’s total forest area.

FSC ensures reliable control of the origin of wood products. However, the Forest Management Principles and Criteria developed by the FSC must be applied at the regional or national level; therefore, since 2014, national standards have been prepared. The FSC Principles and Criteria form the basis of the FSC certification scheme and define environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable forest management [4]. One of the benefits of forest certification is the periodic assessment of forest holders’ activities [5]. Many studies aimed to assess the most frequent non-conformities. Halalisan et al. [6] found that, in different European countries, the most common non-conformities in FSC forest management certification were related to Principle 6 on environmental impact (34%), Principle 4 on community relations and workers’ rights (17%), and Principle 8 on monitoring and assessment (13%). Another study [7] similarly showed that the most significant non-conformities were identified in the labour and social area (Principle 4) and environmental issues (Principle 6). Lehtonen et al. [8] have theoretically assessed FSC’s impact on biodiversity; however, the certification process’s socio-economic impact was not assessed. Jaung et al. [9] found that the key FSC stakeholders’ adaptability was high for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. However, the economic impact remains underexplored. Fagundes et al. [10] aimed to develop a scale to assess the benefits of FSC certification, and the results revealed the existence of two factors for the economic dimension and three factors for the social dimension. Oy’s [11] study concluded that the most significant impact of forest certification was in the environmental protection area; however, it did not identify significant economic benefits to forest owners. Moore et al. [12] studied the effectiveness of forest certification by FSC, and the results indicate that forest certification prompted substantial environmental changes in practices. Savilaakso and Guariguata [13] investigated how to enhance FSC certification for local adoption of ecosystem services, but the assessment indicators were not identified. It can be said that the assessment of FSC’s impact is often limited to the assessment of ecological impact.

Forest certification is a practical way to implement sustainable forest management. However, in countries with comparatively strong forestry regulations, it is often difficult to distinguish improvements caused by certification from those resulting from compliance with national legal requirements [14,15].

Boubacar and Sissoko [16] argue that the impact of FSC is not unambiguous and depends on the context. This underlines the need for country-specific impact assessments. Recent global evidence presented by Kadam and Dwivedi [17] indicates that the biodiversity effects of FSC certification are highly dependent on local conditions. This underlines the importance of country-specific and indicator-based assessments of certification impacts. As noted by Corticeiro et al. [18], the role of FSC certification in Europe is evolving from a market-driven requirement into a broader sustainability-oriented management instrument. This also increases the relevance of country-level assessments of its actual impact.

The literature pays considerable attention to ecological issues, especially biodiversity, but it much less often provides an integrated analysis of all three pillars of sustainability. For example, Matias et al. [19] provide a global systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of FSC on biodiversity. However, a broader assessment should also include social and economic indicators. Pirard et al. [20] examine how private standards such as FSC interact with public policy. They argue that FSC certification should increasingly be understood through mixed governance arrangements as private standards with public policy objectives.

Zubizarreta et al. [21] reinforce the economic and managerial benefit aspects. Studies also suggest that the impact of certification depends not only on the standard itself but also on organisational motivations and stakeholder engagement. This means that certification impacts cannot be assessed purely in formal terms. Nichiforel et al. [22] analyse stakeholder involvement in the FSC system in Romania. They show that stakeholder involvement, community relations and participation are relevant in contemporary FSC research in Europe. Mattsson et al. [23] emphasise the importance of integrated indicators in assessing environmental, social and economic forestry actions.

Although previous studies have examined individual aspects of FSC certification, the literature still lacks an integrated assessment of social, ecological, and economic impacts within a single analytical system as well as a clearer methodological basis for assessing impacts across indicators. To address this gap, the study applies an indicator-based approach to the assessment of FSC-related impacts. This study differs from previous ones in that it treats the impact of FSC not as formal compliance with rules, but as a set of practical consequences, which are determined empirically by combining audit report data with expert experience. This study aims to develop and apply an indicator-based framework for assessing the social, ecological, and economic impacts of FSC certification on forest management, using Lithuania as a case study.

The FSC certification scheme is intended to promote sustainable forest management in practice, but its impacts depend on how consistently and effectively the standard requirements are implemented by certificate holders. In this study, impact refers to changes and consequences related to the application of the FSC standard in forest management (across the social, ecological, and economic dimensions). Where the requirements are implemented successfully, certification may contribute positively to social, ecological, and economic outcomes. Where implementation is incomplete or inconsistent, weaknesses may emerge that limit these expected benefits. These impacts can be assessed using specific indicators. Thus, impact is treated not merely as formal compliance with certification requirements, but as the set of practical consequences arising from implementation.

The study combines a structured SWOT system with content analysis of audit reports and findings from an expert survey. It addresses the following research questions: (1) How can the impacts of FSC certification be conceptually defined and operationalised through social, ecological, and economic indicators? (2) What are the main positive and negative impacts of FSC certification on forest management in Lithuania?

Beyond its empirical focus on Lithuania, the study contributes to research on forest certification by proposing an indicator-based framework for assessing FSC implementation across social, ecological, and economic dimensions. The Lithuanian case also offers insight into wider European discussions on how certification standards are implemented and monitored in practice.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological design combined three qualitative components that were used sequentially and complementarily. First, content analysis of FSC audit reports was used to identify recurring non-conformities, corrective action requests, and other certification-related findings relevant to forest management practice. Second, these findings were grouped into analytical categories and translated into social, ecological, and economic indicators, which were then structured within a SWOT framework. Third, an expert survey was used to validate, refine, and interpret the identified indicators and SWOT factors in the Lithuanian forestry context. This combination of methods enabled the study to link documentary evidence with expert-based contextual interpretation.

Table 1. Methodological procedure of the study.

Step	Methodological Action	Results
1	Analysis of the FSC Standard	Identification of potential strengths and weaknesses related to certification requirements
2	Analysis of FSC audit summary reports, including NCRs and observations	Identification of recurring non-conformities in certified forest management practice
3	Grouping of recurring findings into thematic categories according to their content	Categories reflecting social, ecological, and economic impacts
4	Transformation of thematic categories into analytical indicators and assignment to SWOT elements	Development of a set of analytical indicators assigned to SWOT elements
5	Expert survey	Evaluation of the significance of the identified SWOT factors
6	Integration of document analysis and expert evaluation results	Final assessment of FSC certification impacts

summarises the analytical workflow, showing how audit findings derived from non-conformity in reports (NCRs) were grouped into thematic categories, translated into indicators, and assigned to SWOT elements. First, the FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard for Lithuania (FSC-STD-LTU-01-2020 [24]) was analysed to identify the main potential strengths and weaknesses in implementing certification requirements. Second, public FSC audit summary reports were reviewed to identify non-conformities and recurring implementation problems in certified forest management practice. Third, recurring findings were grouped into thematic categories according to their content and expected social, ecological, and economic impacts. Fourth, these categories were translated into analytical indicators and then assigned to SWOT elements based on whether they represented internal or external factors and positive or negative effects. Fifth, an expert survey was used to evaluate the significance of the identified SWOT factors. Finally, the results of document analysis, audit report assessment, and expert evaluation were integrated into the final impact assessment framework.

2.1. SWOT Analysis

The assessment of the economic, ecological, and social impacts of FSC application in forest management is based on a SWOT analysis. SWOT (Strengths (S)–Weaknesses (W)–Opportunities (O)–Threats (T)) analysis is a method designed to determine internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) factors that are favourable and unfavourable in achieving goals. SWOT analysis represents a comprehensive diagnosis of factors relating to new management [25]. The first step of the SWOT analysis was to define the definitions of the SWOT factors in relation to the aims of the current study. In this study, the SWOT framework was used as an analytical structure for organising the identified impacts of FSC certification. Accordingly, internal factors were treated as strengths and weaknesses, whereas external contextual factors were treated as opportunities and threats. At this stage, the purpose was not to identify specific factors, but to establish the analytical definitions used in the subsequent assessment.

2.2. Content Analysis

The second step of the SWOT analysis was to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with the application of the FSC-STD-LTU-01-2020 standard in Lithuania. This part of the study was based on content analysis. The analysed sources included the FSC-STD-LTU-01-2020 document, official public audit summary reports from the FSC database, statistical data from the Labour Inspectorate database, FSC-certified wood price statistics in Lithuania, and relevant legal documents. These data provide the basis for conducting the SWOT analysis. A total of 94 public audit summary reports from 2021, 2022, and 2023 were analysed and systematised by recording non-conformances with the criteria of the FSC Principles, as well as observations and stakeholder comments. Forest cover 33.8% of Lithuania’s territory, amounting to approximately 2 million hectares (ha) [26]. The analysed area represented 64% of the total forest area in Lithuania, including all state-owned forests and the largest private forest owners.

The content analysis focused on the substantive content of FSC audit reports, with particular attention to recurring non-conformities, corrective actions, and other observations related to forest management practice. Similar findings were then grouped into broader analytical categories reflecting the social, ecological, and economic dimensions of certification. Based on these categories, a set of indicators was developed to operationalise the impacts of FSC certification within the SWOT framework. Thus, the indicators were not defined abstractly in advance; rather, they were derived from the empirical material collected through document analysis and subsequently refined through expert interviews.

2.3. Expert Survey

An expert survey questionnaire is usually based on an interview plan that includes specific questions and their sequence. The expert survey questionnaire was compiled based on the results of the audit analysis. From March to April 2024, a sexpert survey was conducted with 10 experts by phone and email. Respondents were distributed as follows: 5 FSC-certified forest companies; 1 member of the Federation of Lithuanian Forest and Wood Workers’ Trade Unions; 1 member of the Trade Union of Employees of the Lithuanian Environmental Protection System; 1 representative of the State Labour Inspectorate (Employee Safety and Health Department); 2 scientific researchers in the Ecology and Environmental field. The interview objective was to obtain informed expert judgments from individuals with direct experience in forest certification, forest management, or related governance processes. Although the number of interviewed experts was limited, this is consistent with qualitative expert-based research, where depth of knowledge and relevance of expertise are more important than sample size alone. It is recognised that the institutional affiliation of experts may influence the perspective of their assessments and introduce some bias inherent to specific stakeholder groups. The expert questionnaire comprised 35 questions covering social, ecological, and economic impacts. All questions were closed-ended, formulated as statements, and rated on a five-point Likert scale. The interview questionnaire was developed based on the research objectives and the preliminary findings from the document analysis. Interview responses were analysed qualitatively and used to interpret the relevance, consistency, and practical significance of the indicators derived from the content analysis.

3. Results

3.1. SWOT Analytical Framework for Forest Certification

The principles of the FSC standard are developed to ensure sustainable forestry activity and that harvested wood complies with sustainability requirements. Non-compliance with these principles was treated as a weakness, while compliance-related effects were used to define strengths, opportunities, and threats within the analytical framework (

Table 2. Definition of SWOT factors in the forest certification context.

Impact of Factors	Definition of Internal Factors	Definition of External Factors
Positive impact	Strengths refer to the practices of certificate holders that comply with FSC standard requirements.	Opportunities refer to external factors that support the further implementation of FSC requirements.
Negative impact	Weaknesses refer to the practices of certificate holders that do not comply with FSC standard requirements.	Threats refer to external factors that may hinder the further implementation of FSC requirements.

).

3.2. Identification of Internal Factors of the Application of the FSC Standard: Strengths and Weaknesses

The main generalised strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) originate from the content of the FSC-STD-LTU-01-2020 document standard. Each principle and its associated criteria were assessed in relation to their implementation in practice. When the requirements of the standard were fully met, the impact was treated as positive and classified as a strength (

Table 3. The main potential strengths and weaknesses in the FSC-STD-LTU-01-2020 context.

FSC Principle	Impact Dimension	Weaknesses (W)	Strengths (S)
Principle 1. Compliance with laws.	Social	W-1. Disregarding legal acts	S-1. Unconditional recognition of legal acts
Principle 2. Workers’ rights and employment conditions.	Social	W-2. Disregarding the social and economic well-being of workers *	S-2. Improving the social and economic well-being of workers *
Principle 3. Indigenous peoples’ rights. This principle is not applicable in Lithuania.	Social	W-3. Non-recognition of customary rights	S-3. Recognition of customary rights
Principle 4. Community relations.	Social	W-4. Disregarding the social and economic well-being of local communities	S-4. Improving the social and economic well-being of local communities
Principle 5. Benefits from the forest.	Ecological@Economic	W-5. Failure to ensure economic, environmental and social benefits	S-5. Ensuring economic, environmental and social benefits
Principle 6. Environmental values and impact.	Sosial@Ecological	W-6. Insufficient conservation and restoring ecosystem services and environmental values	S-6. Effective conservation and restoring ecosystem services and environmental values
Principle 7. Management plan.	Social	W-7. Insufficient planning of the activity	S-7. Effective planning of the activity
Principle 8. Monitoring and assessment.	Social	W-8. Insufficient monitoring and assessment	S-8. Effective monitoring and assessment
Principle 9. Maintenance of high conservation value (HCV) forests.	Social@Ecological	W-9. Lack of conservation of high conservation value forests	S-9. Conservation of high conservation value forests
Principle 10. Implementation of management activity.	Social@Ecological	W-10. Activity implementation is partial compliance with sustainable principles	S-10. Activity implementation is in total compliance with sustainable principles

* Workers are defined as all employed persons, including public sector employees and self-employed persons, including part-time, seasonal workers, administrative workers, managers, contractors and subcontractors.

). When the requirements were only partially met or not met, the impact was treated as negative and classified as a weakness (Table 3). These impacts were further considered in relation to their social, ecological, and economic dimensions. The factor–impact links presented in Table 3 were developed on the basis of a literature review, FSC normative provisions, and an analytical assessment of the relationships between standard requirements and impact dimensions. Weaknesses (W) indicate that the relevant FSC criterion was not met or was only partially met, whereas strengths (S) indicate that the criterion was met. The first number following W or S refers to the FSC Principle number; when followed by two numbers, it refers to the FSC Principle and criterion number within the FSC system.

Based on the audit public summary reports, a total of 171 non-conformances were identified, revealing 27 potential weaknesses in forestry activities. Most of these non-conformities (79%) were identified during the first year of certificate validity. The highest share of non-conformities was associated with Principle 1 (22%) and Principle 10 (23%). Two weaknesses (W) appeared particularly frequently:

✓

W-1.8 (related to Principle 1 and 8 criteria). Audit findings indicated that the knowledge of employees and contractors in forestry organisations about the new standard is not always sufficient for its full implementation.

✓

W-10.11 (related to Principle 10 and 11 criteria). The amount of dead wood often is less than 5 m³/ha, and selected trees for biodiversity are often of low biological value and not resistant to winds.

It is noted that non-conformances related to Principle 5 have not been identified based on the analysis of audit reports. The percentage distribution of non-conformities related to other principles is presented in Figure 1. From an analytical perspective, the figure helps to identify where weaknesses are most concentrated and therefore supports the subsequent prioritisation and interpretation of the main problem areas.

Of the 27 identified non-conformities, 23 were included in the questionnaire used to collect expert opinion. Four non-conformities related to standard requirements SR 6.7, SR 7.6, SR 9.2, and SR 9.3 (

Table 4. Indicators for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of certified forests in applying the standard by impact dimensions.

No.	Impact Dimension	Indicator	Type	Related Principle/Criteria *
1	Social	Legality of activity	Weakness	1.3
2	Social	Use of certified FSC brands	Weakness	1.5
3	Social	Wood trade is based on national and international rules	Weakness	1.5
4	Social	Cooperating in dispute resolutions	Weakness	1.6
5	Social	No corruption	Add **	1.7
6	Social	Sufficient knowledge of employees about the FSC standard	Strength	1.8
7	Social	No forced and illegal labour	Weakness	2.1
8	Social	Gender equality	Weakness	2.2
9	Social	Use of work protective equipment at the workplace	Weakness	2.3
10	Social	Good condition of work protective equipment	Weakness	2.3
11	Social	Sufficient knowledge of employees about how to safely implement activities and apply this in practice	Weakness	2.5
12	Social	A clear procedure for resolving disputes with workers	Weakness	2.6
13	Social	Cooperating with local communities	Weakness	4.1
14	Social	Informing stakeholders about how they can submit comments or request changes	Weakness	4.2
15	Social	Clear procedures for solving complaints with stakeholders	Weakness	4.6
16	Social	Identification of representative sample areas in communication with stakeholders	Strength	6.5
17	Social	The activity planning is using the most relevant information and is in communication with consulting stakeholders	Weakness	7.4.
18	Social	Preparing a procedure for involving stakeholders in the activity planning and monitoring processes	Weakness	7.6
19	Social	Systematicity of monitoring activity	Strength	8.2
20	Social	Public summary of monitoring results	Weakness	8.4
21	Social	The right name of the tree species in invoices	Weakness	8.5
22	Social	Informing stakeholders on time about the preparation of a list of HCV	Strength	9.1
23	Social	Technique conditions for the safety of workers	Add **	10.11
24	Ecological	Annual volumes as an ecological value	Strength	5.2
25	Ecological	Systematicity of environmental impact assessment	Weakness	6.2
26	Ecological	Use of lists of protected species and invasive species	Weakness	6.3
27	Ecological	Protection of biodiversity	Weakness	6.6
28	Ecological	Protection of natural waterways, water bodies, coastal areas and their natural connections	Weakness	6.7
29	Ecological	Effective strategies for maintaining HCV are being developed	Strength	9.2
30	Ecological	Activity is implemented without harming the HCV	Strength	9.3
31	Ecological	Control of invasive species	Strength	10.3
32	Ecological	Activity damage	Strength	10.10
33	Ecological	Amount of dead wood and trees for biodiversity	Strength	10.11
34	Ecological	Technique condition for preserving environmental values	Strength	10.11
35	Ecological	Managing the environment after forestry operations	Weakness	10.12
36	Economic	Opportunities for others to have benefits	Strength	5.1
37	Economic	Annual volumes as economic value	Strength	5.2
38	Economic	Benefit due to the positive social and environmental impact	Weakness	5.3
39	Economic	Use of local services	Strength	5.4
40	Economic	Conditions for the emergence of local service	Strength	5.4

Related principle/criteria *—The first number refers to the FSC Principle number; the second number refers to the FSC criterion number within the FSC system. Add **—Additional research is needed.

) were not included because experts were considered unlikely to provide sufficiently objective assessments of these issues. Therefore, these factors were evaluated in this study only based on audit results. In contrast, four potential non-conformities related to Principle 5—SR 5.1, SR 5.2, SR 5.3, and SR 5.4—were included in the expert questionnaire even though they were not identified in the audit. Overall, the questionnaire covered 27 potential non-conformities through 35 questions reflecting their social, ecological, and economic impacts.

3.2.1. Social Impact

Based on the analysis of audit reports, 38 non-conformities in reports (NCRs) were identified according to Principle 1 (area of compliance with laws). They describe 4 weaknesses: W-1.3, W-1.5, W-1.6, W-1.8 (Table 4). Principle 1 was associated with legal compliance, the use of FSC-certified claims, dispute-resolution procedures, and improved staff knowledge of FSC requirements. For example, 25 NCRs related to staff understanding of the new standard were recorded in 2021; this number decreased to 1 in 2022, and no such NCRs were recorded in 2023. Therefore, W-1.8 was a weakness in 2021, but now it is becoming a strength (Table 4). The social impact of the application of Principle 1 of the standard in the area of corruption (related to Principle 1 and 7 criteria) cannot be evaluated in this study because there is no data on corruption supporting information based on audit results and expert interviews, so additional research is needed to assess this factor.

13 NCRs were identified according to Principle 2 (area of workers’ rights and employment conditions). They describe 3 weaknesses: W-2.3, W-2.5, W-2.6 (Table 4). Principle 2, part of the standard, encourages the use of work protective equipment at the workplace, but this is not always enforced. The analysis identified recurring weaknesses related to workers’ rights and employment conditions, particularly regarding the availability and condition of fire extinguishers and first-aid kits, as well as shortcomings in workplace safety practices. Expert responses also highlighted insufficient attention to the preparation of machinery for forest operations.

12 NCRs were identified according to Principle 4 (area of community relations). They describe 3 weaknesses: W-4.1, W-4.2, and W-4.6 (Table 4). The analysis identified several weaknesses related to community relations, particularly in cooperation with local communities and in the practical implementation of related procedures. Procedures for solving complaints with stakeholders are not always clear, and these procedures are not developed in a culturally appropriate way in cooperation with the communities. Informing stakeholders about how they can submit comments or request changes does not always go smoothly either.

21 NCRs were identified according to Principle 6 (area of environmental values and impact). They describe 5 weaknesses, but only one weakness, W-6.5, was related to social impact, specifically to communication with stakeholders. The audit data showed a decline in related NCRs over time: 3 NCRs were recorded in 2021, 2 in 2022, and none in 2023. Therefore, W-6.5 was a weakness in 2021 and 2022, but now it is becoming a strength (Table 4). 7 NCRs were identified according to Principle 7 (area of the management plan). They describe 2 weaknesses: W-7.4 and W-7.6 (Table 4). These were related to stakeholder involvement in activity planning and monitoring processes. The audit findings indicated that the required procedures for consulting stakeholders were not consistently applied in practice. 24 NCRs were identified according to Principle 8 (area of monitoring and assessment). They describe 3 weaknesses: W-8.2, W-8.4 and W-8.5 (Table 4). The audit data showed a notable decline in monitoring-related NCRs: 14 were recorded in 2021, and none in 2022 or 2023. Therefore, W-8.2 was a weakness in 2021, but now it is becoming a strength (Table 4). However, shortcomings were also identified in relation to public summaries, which were not always accessible on organisational websites, and in the consistent use of correct tree species names in invoices. 17 NCRs were identified according to Principle 9 (area of maintenance of high conservation value (HCV) forests). They describe 3 weaknesses, but only one weakness, W-9.1, related to social impact and was reflected in 10 NCRs from the audit results. These indicated that assessments and selections of special values were often conducted solely by organisational staff, without informing or involving external stakeholders. The audit data also showed a declining trend in stakeholder-notification NCRs: 9 were recorded in 2021, 1 in 2022, and none in 2023. Therefore, W-9.1 was a weakness in 2021, but now it is becoming a strength (Table 4).

The social impact of applying Principle 10 (area of implementation of management activity) related to the area of technical conditions for the safety of workers is very important. However, this aspect (related to Principle 10 and 11 criteria) could not be classified as either the strength Sor the weakness (Table 4), because it is difficult to assess based on expert opinion only.

3.2.2. Ecological Impact

Expert responses indicated that under Principle 5 (area of the benefits from the forest), annual forest cutting volumes generally did not exceed the permitted harvesting rates, reflecting a balance between annual forest growth and harvesting (S-5.2) (Table 4).

Based on the analysis of audit reports, 5 weaknesses were identified according to Principle 6 (area of environmental values and impact), and 4 of these are related to ecological impact: W-6.2, W-6.3, W-6.6 and W-6.7 (Table 4). They were related to environmental impact assessment, including a lack of systematic procedures and inconsistencies in the compilation of protected and invasive species lists. 3 weaknesses were identified according to Principle 9 (area of maintenance of high conservation value (HCV) forests), and 2 of these are related to ecological impact: W-9.2 and W-9.3. Most related NCRs were recorded in 2021. Therefore, W-9.2 and W-9.3 were the weaknesses in 2021, but now they are becoming strengths (Table 4). 39 NCRs were identified according to Principle 10 (area of implementation of management activity). They describe 2 weaknesses: W-10.11 (related to the amount of dead wood and trees for biodiversity) and W-10.12 (Table 4) in post-operation environmental management. However, W-10.11 was a weakness in 2021 and 2022, but now it is becoming a strength. The analysis associated Principle 10 with several ecological aspects, including the control of invasive species, the reduction in damage to soil and water resources, and the retention of dead wood and trees relevant to biodiversity. Expert responses also emphasised the value of retaining biodiversity-important living trees in groups. According to the experts, this practice is beneficial for rare and endangered species.

3.2.3. Economic Impact

Based on the analysis of expert interviews, 1 weakness W-5.3 and 4 strengths were identified according to Principle 5 (area of the benefits from the forest): S-5.1, S-5.2, and S-5.4 (Table 4), in relation to economic impact. These were associated with harvesting volumes, the use of local services, and opportunities for economic benefits linked to certification. These findings were related to annual harvesting volumes, the use of local services, and certification-related economic benefits. A total of 40 indicators were identified to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of certified forests in applying the standard (Table 4) across social, ecological, and economic impacts. The indicator set was developed for the Lithuanian FSC certification context; however, its thematic structure was designed in a way that may support adaptation for comparative use in other national settings.

3.3. Identification of External Factors of the Application of the FSC Standard: Opportunities and Threats

Potential external factors affecting the application of the FSC standard were identified through literature analysis and grouped as opportunities or threats across economic, social, and ecological dimensions (Table 4). The reviewed sources highlighted policy, market, demographic, and climate-related drivers relevant to the implementation of certified forest management. The new EU Forestry Strategy for 2030 was initiated in 2021. It promotes sustainable forest management, biodiversity, alternative forest-based industries, and the protection of remaining primary and old-growth forests [27,28]. This new EU Forestry Strategy emphasises sustainable forest management and the role of forests in implementing the EU’s climate change goals. This strategy is a flagship element of the European Green Deal and a key measure of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [29]. In the United Nations resolution “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, the goals are also linked to sustainable forestry. Goal 15 refers to protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of ecosystems, sustainably managing forests, halting the loss of biodiversity, preventing the spread of invasive species, or significantly reducing their impact [30].

The analysis of certified and non-certified wood price dynamics [31] showed that the price difference during 2021–2024 ranged from 2% to 9%. In 2021, certified wood prices were approximately 9% higher than non-certified wood prices; the difference was 5% in 2022, 4% in 2023, and 2% in 2024. The largest price difference was observed for pulpwood.

The literature reviewed for external-factor identification indicated several market-related opportunities. Forecasts suggest average global economic growth of 2–3% per year by 2050 [32], while Global Forest Products Model (GFPM) simulations project increasing consumption of primary processed wood products up to 2040 [33]. Additional sources indicate further growth in industrial roundwood demand and continued dependence on resource availability, investment, and market conditions [33]. The potential opportunities and threats related to applying the FSC standard to forest management practice were identified through literature analysis and are presented in

Table 5. Potential opportunities and threats in applying the standard by impact factors.

Name of the External Factor	Impact Dimension	Description of Factor	Opportunity or Threat
Economic growth	Economic	By 2050, the global economy will grow by an average of 2–3% per year [32].	Opportunity
Increasing wood biomass demand	Economic	Wood biomass demand is expected to increase in line with bioeconomy development, and forests play an essential role in the circular economy [34].The furniture industry in Lithuania plays a significant role in driving the demand for wood products, and this has led to an increasing demand for wood [35]. The wood product market is expected to grow strongly in the coming years, driven by population growth and residential construction [36].	Opportunity
Wood price	Economic	The price of certified wood is higher than non-certified wood [31].	Opportunity
Standard of living growth	Sosial@Economic	The standard of living in terms of GDP per capita will continue to improve in most countries around the world until 2060 [36]. As the standard of living rises, purchasing power will increase, both domestically and in other countries as export markets, and consumers will be able to purchase better quality certified wood.	Opportunity
Decline of the working-age population	Social@Economic	Based on Eurostat data, by 2050, the population will decrease by 23% in Lithuania (in EU-27 countries, only 2% at the same time). An ageing population trend will emerge, the working-age population will decrease, and the problem of emigration can also remain. Therefore, there can be a reason for a threat to forest wood production and wood demand in the domestic market. This can hinder or slow down economic growth in the forestry sector in Lithuania.	Threat
Lack of skilled workers	Social	Unbalanced supply of skilled workers. Necessary decisions on a better supply of forestry sectors with specialists and more skilled workers.	Threat
Climate change	Ecological	One of the most important strategic objectives of forestry is GHG absorption, the need to reduce global warming and other negative effects of climate change [34].	Opportunity
EU policy on mitigating climate change	Social@Ecological	The forestry sector is classified as one of the sectors related to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Forests are important for the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere and for CO2 accumulation [34].	Opportunity

. These external factors were classified according to their relevance to certified forest management and their social, ecological, or economic dimension.

4. Discussion

The discussion of the results is relevant not only for understanding FSC certification in Lithuania, but also for situating this case within broader scientific discussions on certification implementation, and the role of national context in shaping sustainability governance.

The results of this study indicate that FSC certification has identifiable, but uneven social, ecological, and economic effects in forest management practice. It has been established that the practical implementation of certification requirements varies across principles and impact dimensions. This may reflect a difference between formal compliance and practical implementation in everyday forest management. Overall, the results indicate that certification can be understood as a governance and monitoring framework within organisational practice, rather than as a mechanism that automatically ensures equal levels of impact across all sustainability dimensions.

In this context, FSC certification can be understood not just as a technical standard but as a framework that reflects theories of social cooperation and economic systems [37]. These insights align with broader global and regional trends: Bösch [38] highlights the uneven global expansion of forest certification driven by specific institutional factors, while Klarić et al. [39] note that in post-Soviet contexts like Croatia, FSC has evolved from a mere market-driven response into a comprehensive tool for promoting sustainable practices.

To systematically identify implementation gaps, this study proposes a 40-indicator model that allows for the assessment of real changes in management processes rather than mere formal compliance. This approach aligns with the systematic review by Fagundes et al. [40], which emphasises that certification effectiveness depends on the successful integration of social, ecological, and economic goals. Furthermore, Leite et al. [41] observe that certification is increasingly becoming an integral part of internal sustainability management control systems, serving as an internal tool to structure sustainability objectives.

At the same time, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Given the methodological approach used in this study, they indicate associations and implementation-related differences rather than definitive causal effects. Even so, the Lithuanian case supports the conclusion that FSC certification can produce meaningful changes in forest management, but that these changes are not equally strong across all sustainability dimensions. In the social dimension, the study suggests that FSC certification is associated with legal compliance and procedural accountability, although challenges remain in occupational safety and community relations. The recurring weaknesses related to workers’ safety and local community relations indicate that the social dimension of certification may be more difficult to implement consistently than formal procedural requirements. This corresponds with earlier research [42], which suggests that social issues, particularly impacts on workers and local communities, are among the most frequent areas of non-conformity in FSC-certified forest management.

The recurrence of non-compliance with health and safety requirements in forest operations may be related to insufficient internal control of occupational safety and health within organisations, as well as shortcomings in work organisation. However, this problem is likely not limited to FSC-certified forests and may also be characteristic of non-FSC-certified forests in Lithuania. Such an interpretation is important because it suggests that some weaknesses identified through certification audits may reflect broader structural problems in the forestry sector rather than failures caused solely by the certification system itself.

Across several principles, the results of this study suggest a tendency towards improvement in stakeholder communication and monitoring-related compliance over time. However, recurring gaps in planning, public information, and stakeholder involvement indicate that full implementation of social and procedural requirements remains incomplete. This interpretation is consistent with earlier studies [38,39,43] that identified recurring difficulties in complying with some FSC requirements across different national contexts and certification settings.

Official labour statistics provide a broader context for interpreting the social implications of forest management practices in Lithuania. In 2023, 29 cases of illegal work were identified in the forestry sector, compared with 25 cases in 2022 [44]. In addition, the analysis of occupational accidents in Lithuanian forestry [45] shows that, in 2021–2023, the number of serious accidents was 30% higher and the number of fatal accidents was 50% higher than in 2018–2020. According to surveys of forest loggers conducted by the State Labour Inspectorate [46], it was found that more than half (54%) of loggers had not mastered the basic work safety requirements. These trends may reflect persistent shortcomings in occupational safety and work organisation, particularly in forest management settings where control mechanisms are weaker. The main causes of accidents in 2021–2023 were violations of occupational safety and health requirements laid down in legal acts, insufficient internal control of occupational safety and health within organisations, and inappropriate work organisation, which together accounted for 92% of all cases. At the same time, no work accidents related to forest fires were recorded in either 2018–2020 or 2021–2023.

This interpretation is further supported by Lindahl and Andersson [47], who question whether certification in the Swedish wood sector represents a strategic commitment or merely a symbolic response in firms with limited resources. Their findings show that small and medium-sized enterprises often struggle to integrate certification requirements into daily practice, which may help explain the uneven implementation observed in this study. From a social impact perspective, this suggests that weaknesses in areas such as community relations may indicate that some certification requirements are still approached more as formal obligations than as strategically embedded social responsibilities. At the same time, Teitelbaum [48] demonstrates the transformative potential of FSC to reshape established practices. However, the Lithuanian case suggests that community relations under Principle 4 remain an area of limited consistency. This finding is mirrored in other contexts [49] where community participation remains a challenge for both certified and non-certified entities. This indicates that the social impact of certification depends not only on the formal existence of standard requirements, but also on how deeply those requirements are embedded in daily organisational practice and on the genuine involvement of local communities. In this respect, the results of the study support the argument that certification should be evaluated through its practical social outcomes rather than through formal compliance alone. In the ecological dimension, the findings suggest that FSC certification is associated with stronger attention to biodiversity-related requirements, habitat protection, and environmentally oriented management measures. At the same time, the results indicate that the consistency of implementation varies across ecological principles and specific operational contexts. This interpretation is consistent with earlier research [50,51], indicating that FSC certification may support biodiversity-related safeguards and strengthen environmental requirements beyond minimum legal compliance, although the degree of practical implementation may vary across contexts. The effectiveness of biodiversity conservation is also shaped by the national standard-development processes, which balance global requirements with local ecological priorities [52]. Furthermore, the integration of new technologies can serve as a vital ally in monitoring and achieving sustainable forest management goals [53]. The results of this study contribute to global discussions on reducing forest loss, as highlighted by Bocci and Fortmann [54] in their research on forest concessions. The Lithuanian case, therefore, appears to align with broader findings [55] that certification is particularly relevant where ecological safeguards depend not only on formal rules but also on consistent implementation in forest management practice. Ultimately, the Lithuanian case demonstrates that certification acts as a specific governance instrument rather than an automatic mechanism, with its success remaining contingent on the institutional environment and practical consistency. This is supported by Zwerts et al.’s (2024) [50] research, which shows that it is compliance with FSC requirements (and not just having a certificate) that leads to positive ecological results.

In the economic dimension, the findings suggest that FSC certification may generate certain organisational or market-related benefits, but its direct economic impact is less clearly observable than its procedural or environmental effects. This corresponds to earlier literature [56], indicating that economic outcomes of certification are often weaker or depend heavily on which specific wood product attributes consumers value the most. Additionally, valuing verified ecosystem services remains a complex but potentially rewarding economic path for certified forests [57]. Also, this study indicates that economic viability is not explicitly reflected in the standard through a quantitative indicator. This suggests that the assessment framework could be strengthened by introducing criteria that allow a more systematic evaluation of the profitability of FSC certificate holders. Such an approach could help to determine whether economic performance remains consistent with the broader principles of sustainability, for example, by distinguishing between high, sufficient, and insufficient levels of profitability in relation to sustainable forest management. Wolff and Schweinle [58], in their systematic review of the effectiveness and economic viability of forest certification, also emphasise that the economic benefits of certification often remain ambiguous and are highly context-dependent. Their findings corroborate the trend observed in this study: while certification is regarded as a vital tool for sustainable management, its direct impact on corporate profitability is less apparent than its influence on management processes. This further underscores the necessity of implementing more targeted economic indicators in Lithuania to better evaluate the economic sustainability of certified forest management organisations and their interplay with environmental requirements. The contribution of this study lies not only in assessing the impacts of FSC certification in Lithuania, but also in proposing an integrated methodological approach that combines standard analysis, audit-based evidence, and expert evaluation into a coherent impact assessment system. A further contribution of this study is the proposed set of 40 indicators. These indicators provide a clear framework for assessing FSC certification across social, ecological, and economic dimensions. Although the developed set of 40 indicators was designed for the Lithuanian national FSC standard context, its overall thematic structure and integrated methodological approach are transferable to other countries. The indicators may also be applied in other national contexts. Where necessary, they can be adjusted (or additional indicators can be added) to reflect the requirements of a specific national standard. From a broader scientific perspective, the study also contributes to discussions on how forest certification should be assessed beyond formal compliance. This indicator set may be used to support certification monitoring, policy development, and comparative studies across countries or between certified and non-certified forest managers. This study has some limitations. It focuses on one national context and qualitative assessment. Future research could extend this approach by applying the methodology in comparative studies across different national contexts. It would also be valuable to compare certified and non-certified forest management units to better isolate the specific contribution of FSC certification to sustainable forest management.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that FSC certification in Lithuania has identifiable but uneven social, ecological, and economic effects on forest management practice. The findings suggest that certification contributes most clearly to legal compliance, procedural accountability, and several ecologically relevant management practices, while its economic effects are associated with market-related benefits and the use of local services.

At the same time, the study identified persistent implementation challenges, particularly in the social dimension. The main weaknesses were related to occupational safety, the consistent use of protective measures, stakeholder involvement, and the practical application of certification requirements in everyday forest management.

Overall, the results indicate that the effects of certification depend not only on the formal content of the FSC standard but also on the consistency of its implementation in practice. The combined use of audit reports, expert interviews, and external-factor analysis made it possible to assess certification not only as a formal compliance mechanism but also as a broader governance instrument in forest management.

The proposed set of 40 indicators may also provide a basis for future comparative research and practice-oriented monitoring of FSC certification implementation. While the framework was developed for the Lithuanian context, its general structure and integrated methodological approach are transferable to other countries. In other national settings, these indicators may be applied as a baseline and, where necessary, adjusted or supplemented to reflect the specific requirements of national FSC standards.

The scientific contribution of this study lies not only in its empirical examination of FSC certification in Lithuania, but also in its proposed indicator-based approach for analysing certification implementation across multiple dimensions. Although the findings are context-specific, they are relevant to broader European discussions on forest certification, particularly with regard to how national institutional settings shape the practical interpretation and implementation of FSC requirements. The study, therefore, offers a basis for future comparative research on certification implementation in different national contexts.