Defending forests shouldn’t cost lives: Forest 500 assesses corporate zero tolerance policies

Human rights and environment defenders stand up for the rights of others. Among them, forest and land defenders, especially Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), play a crucial role in protecting forests and ecosystems. Research shows that deforestation rates are about 50% lower on land inhabited by IPLCs. Yet they are also the defenders most at risk of threats and violence.

By Marina Comandulli

Senior Human Rights and Deforestation Associate at Global Canopy

According to Christen Dobson, Co-Head of the Civic Freedoms & Human Rights Defenders Programme, at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), over the past decade, they have recorded over 6,400 attacks (including 1,088 killings) against human rights defenders raising concerns about business-related human rights risks and harms.

“That’s nearly two attacks on average daily, and we know that is just the tip of the iceberg as many attacks are never shared publicly,” Dobson clarifies. “Almost three-quarters of attacks are against climate, land and environmental defenders. Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately affected, facing 21% of recorded attacks despite comprising around 6% of the world population. This shows that people protecting forests and natural resources, who are at the forefront of advancing a just transition and addressing the climate crisis, face severe risks and harms related to their defense of human rights and the protection of the environment.”

Commitments and implementation remain limited

Global Canopy’s annual Forest 500 assessment looks at six human rights criteria closely associated with preventing deforestation. Three indicators are interconnected with deforestation as violations of these rights frequently happen around the point of forest loss. They are: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); zero tolerance for threats and violence against forest, land and human rights defenders; and customary rights to land, resources and territory.

Among them, zero tolerance is least likely to be addressed by companies: only 9% of the 500 companies assessed have a public commitment in place for at least one forest risk commodity. By comparison, 37% of companies have committed to FPIC, and 24% have commitments to respect the customary rights of IPLCs to land, resources and territory.

A good zero tolerance policy is a public commitment that companies and financial organisations will not tolerate violence and threats against forest, land and human rights defenders. A comprehensive policy is essential as defenders play a crucial role protecting people and the environment, and exposing harm, often at great personal risk.

Adam Lunn, Global Focal Point and Facilitator at the Zero Tolerance Initiative, explains: “A credible zero tolerance approach requires more than words: it must be embedded in governance structures, supply chain expectations, human rights due diligence and accessible grievance mechanisms. Companies and financial institutions must engage directly with defenders, monitor risks, use their leverage to address the root causes and press for prevention, cessation and remedy when attacks occur. Anything less not only fails those who defend human rights, but also undermines the credibility of corporate sustainability commitments.”

Only 47 Forest 500 companies have commitments for zero tolerance for at least one commodity. Companies in the palm oil (18%) and cocoa (14%) supply chains are more likely to have commitments. Commitments are scarce in the beef (10%), soy (11%) and timber (6%) sectors, although these industries are linked to abuses in Latin America. According to BHRRC, 40% of attacks against human rights defenders over the last decade took place in Latin America, with Brazil recording the highest number of killings worldwide.

Commitments are only the first step. Companies must show they put policies into practice. Only six of the Forest 500 companies publish evidence of due diligence and progress reporting on eradicating violence and threats from their supply chains. They are Colgate-Palmolive Co., Hershey Co., Unilever PLC, Wilmar International Ltd, Mercedes-Benz Group and Ahold Delhaize.

Among these, the first four companies publish and report on commitments for the three human rights abuses mostly closely associated with deforestation – but only for palm oil. Conversely, Mercedes-Benz and Ahold have commitments for, and report on, all the commodities they are exposed to, but they do not have commitments in place for customary rights to land, resources and territory, which goes hand in hand with zero tolerance. No company has achieved comprehensive reporting across all human rights abuses for all forest risk commodities.

Next steps

There is no just and durable solution to deforestation without protecting environment and human rights defenders, especially IPLCs. The biggest powerbrokers in agricultural commodities must take responsibility for ending abuses in their value chains. With COP30 taking place in Brazil, a country that faces ongoing challenges when it comes to violence against environment and human rights defenders, governments must ensure this issue is high on the agenda.

Percentages for zero tolerance commitments for palm oil, cocoa, beef, soy and timber were updated on 9 September 2025