This thesis critically analyses the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). These standards have been used to certify Australian forests and plantations under their respective schemes. The standards are chosen as the objects of study because claims of ‘responsible’ or ‘sustainably managed forests’ are based on compliance with these standards, which are recognised by organisations administering ‘green’ rating tools and guidance on the procurement of wood products. This research provides for a critical understanding of these standards. In this thesis, four levels of Critical Discourse Analysis are undertaken: the first level consists of analysing social structures and networks of social practices that enable and constrain the production of the standards; the second level consists of analysing the specific social practices and orders of discourse that mediate between these structures and networks and the texts of the standards; the third level consists of the textual analysis of the standards; and the fourth level consists of a comparison of language use and structure, which reveal that a particular standard is but one realization from a total potential. Previous methods of comparative analysis on the standards of the FSC and AFS, along with other forest certification schemes, have reflected the values of specific stakeholder interests on what constitutes a preferred standard. In contrast, this thesis argues that each forest certification scheme’s standard is the result of specific discursive and linguistic choices made in the process of its development, which are motivated by the values of specific stakeholder interests. The structure and use of language in the standards will ultimately determine the manner in which forest management is assessed and claims of ‘well managed forests’ or ‘sustainably managed forests’ are communicated