Forests are central to climate change mitigation, and there is consensus that climate transition efforts must be just. However, the “just transition” concept often functions as a boundary object, leading to ambiguity in its implementation. Statements of commitment to just transitions therefore require scrutiny as to what a just transition is meant to entail, what kind of justice transition policies seek to ensure, and how these ambitions are envisioned to be realised in practice. Yet, it is precisely this that is missing in the current academic literature, especially in the forest sector context. This study addresses this gap by analysing implicit and explicit justice expressions in the Paris Agreement, and EU- and Swedish climate-forest policy mixes, thereby providing empirical insights on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of just transitions in the forest sector. Using a newly developed framework that combines the policy mix concept with distributional, recognitional, and procedural justice dimensions, the analysis reveals shared narrow foci in just transition understanding, discrepancies between expressed just transition motivations, and inconsistent mechanisms for implementation across governance levels, thus risking stakeholder disengagement. The results call for explicit discussions in policy debate on how justice can be ensured in transition efforts in the forest sector across levels, regardless of the specific understanding of justice that is adhered to, and open societal debate on what a just transition ultimately ought to mean in a forest context. Furthermore, policy makers must take the step from ambiguous promises to concrete instruments to support forest stakeholders through the transition