The 5 Different Types of Justice
032. What is the distinction between distributive, procedural, retributive, restorative, and social justice, and how do they relate to social imapct?
Justice is a foundational concept across moral philosophy, political theory, and legal thought — a complex and layered ideal that encompasses various principles of fairness, equity, and moral rightness. For changemakers working across diverse sectors such as grassroots activism, social entrepreneurship, coaching, education, policy, and the non-profit world, understanding justice in its multiple forms is critical to effecting meaningful and ethical change.
Scholars and practitioners alike commonly identify five key types of justice: distributive, procedural, retributive, restorative, and social justice. Each type addresses a different aspect of human relations and societal organisation, and each is grounded in its own philosophical lineage and normative assumptions. Together, they provide a comprehensive framework for analysing power, accountability, fairness, and the pursuit of equity in both individual and systemic contexts.
These categories of justice are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in practice, they often intersect. For instance, a criminal trial may be procedurally just (fair trial), while simultaneously engaging questions of retributive (punishment) and restorative (repair) justice. Similarly, social justice movements often critique existing distributive and procedural norms as insufficient or inherently biased.
Furthermore, tensions can arise. For example, a procedure may be formally fair but yield substantively unjust outcomes due to systemic inequality. Likewise, efforts to ensure equality (distributive justice) may conflict with principles of merit or liberty.
Distributive Justice - Equitable Allocation of Resources & Opportunities
Distributive justice, one of the foundational branches of justice theory, addresses the moral principles that guide the allocation of resources, rights, and responsibilities within a society. While the concept may seem abstract or philosophical, its implications are profoundly practical. Questions about who gets what, and why, underpin nearly every facet of public life — from economic policy and healthcare access to educational opportunity and environmental stewardship.
By embedding these principles into their work, changemakers do more than provide services or advocate for reform — they participate in the ongoing reconstitution of the social contract. In doing so, they enact a vision of justice that is as aspirational as it is urgently necessary.
Theoretical Foundations of Distributive Justice
The philosophical tradition surrounding distributive justice is rich and contested, reflecting varying views on human nature, equality, freedom, and the role of the state. Three dominant traditions can be identified: egalitarianism, libertarianism, and utilitarianism, with a fourth — Rawlsian liberalism — offering a unique synthesis.
1. Egalitarian Theories
At the heart of egalitarianism lies the conviction that all individuals are entitled to equal consideration and respect. For distributive justice, this often translates into advocacy for equality of outcome or, more frequently in contemporary settings, equality of opportunity. Egalitarians argue that social and economic inequalities must be justified by their ability to improve the well-being of the least advantaged. This principle is particularly influential in debates around public education, healthcare provision, and progressive taxation.
2. Libertarian Theories
Libertarian thinkers, most notably Robert Nozick (1974), conceptualise distributive justice in terms of entitlement. They argue that individuals are entitled to the holdings they acquire through just means — whether through personal effort, voluntary exchange, or inheritance — and that redistribution via state intervention violates personal liberty. This framework prioritises individual rights and minimal state interference, and is frequently invoked in critiques of welfare states or affirmative action policies.
3. Utilitarian Approaches
Utilitarianism, derived from the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates distributive arrangements based on their consequences — specifically, whether they maximise overall happiness or utility. In this view, redistribution is justified if it leads to a net increase in social welfare. Critics, however, argue that utilitarianism may permit significant inequalities if such disparities produce overall benefits, thus potentially neglecting concerns of fairness or desert.
4. Rawlsian Justice
John Rawls’ seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971) provides a more nuanced approach. He posits that principles of justice should be chosen behind a “veil of ignorance,” whereby individuals are unaware of their own social status, talents, or preferences. From this original position, Rawls argues, rational actors would endorse two principles: (1) equal basic liberties for all, and (2) social and economic inequalities arranged to benefit the least advantaged (the “difference principle”). Rawls’ framework remains highly influential in policy design and academic discourse, offering a middle path between pure egalitarianism and unqualified libertarianism.
Common Applications of Distributive Justice
While often discussed in theoretical terms, distributive justice has immediate and tangible applications. It plays a critical role in shaping public institutions, informing ethical business practices, and guiding interventions across multiple sectors.
1. Public Policy and Social Welfare
Policy frameworks, especially those concerning taxation, education, healthcare, housing, and social services, are direct expressions of distributive justice principles. Progressive tax regimes, universal healthcare systems (such as Australia's Medicare), and public education funding are all designed — explicitly or implicitly — to achieve a more just distribution of societal goods.
2. Economic Development and Social Entrepreneurship
In the realm of social entrepreneurship, distributive justice underpins the creation of inclusive business models that seek to empower marginalised communities, redistribute profits, and promote access to essential services. Whether through fair trade, microfinance, or ethical supply chains, these ventures aim to correct structural imbalances and support community development.
3. Education and Pedagogy
Educators and coaches encounter distributive justice in their daily practice. The allocation of attention, resources, and expectations in classrooms — as well as the design of curricula that reflect diverse histories and needs — embodies distributive justice concerns. In coaching and developmental contexts, equitable access to opportunity and the dismantling of internalised disadvantage are central.
4. Non-profit and Community Work
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charities, and community groups often serve as frontline agents of distributive justice. By addressing food insecurity, homelessness, gender inequality, or refugee rights, these organisations seek to rectify systemic imbalances. Their work is often premised on a view that current distributions of power and wealth are unjust and require correction through intentional, redistributive action.
5. Environmental Justice and Sustainability
An emerging application of distributive justice involves environmental justice, which focuses on how environmental benefits and burdens — such as clean air, water access, and exposure to pollution — are distributed across populations. This area highlights the intersection of ecological concerns with social equity, especially as climate change disproportionately affects the Global South and Indigenous communities.
Procedural Justice: Legitimacy, Fairness, and the Power of Process
Procedural justice is a cornerstone of ethical governance, social cohesion, and institutional legitimacy. It refers to the perceived fairness of the processes through which decisions are made, rather than the fairness of the outcomes themselves. While distributive justice concerns what individuals receive, procedural justice is concerned with how decisions are reached and whether the rules, practices, and interactions that shape those decisions are just. Its influence extends across legal systems, public administration, education, organisational management, and grassroots mobilisation.
Procedural justice, though sometimes less visible than distributive or restorative forms of justice, is no less vital. It shapes perceptions of legitimacy, structures trust in institutions, and reinforces the social fabric upon which democratic and equitable societies depend. Its relevance extends across sectors, ideologies, and contexts, offering a powerful lens for understanding and improving the processes through which decisions are made and power is exercised.
Theoretical Foundations of Procedural Justice
The conceptual roots of procedural justice can be traced to legal and moral philosophy, though its contemporary articulation owes much to empirical social psychology. The distinction between outcomes and procedures, and the significance individuals attribute to each, forms the basis of modern theories of procedural justice.
1. Classical Legal Theory
In classical jurisprudence, thinkers such as Aristotle and Cicero emphasised the importance of impartiality and consistency in adjudication. These early accounts understood fair process as integral to the legitimacy of law and the maintenance of civil order. However, they often subordinated process to substance, seeing procedure as a means to achieving just outcomes.
2. Rawlsian Liberalism
John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (1971), contributed to procedural conceptions by distinguishing between perfect, imperfect, and pure procedural justice. Pure procedural justice occurs where there is no independent criterion of a just outcome; rather, the fairness of the process itself guarantees the fairness of the result. A lottery or fair trial may fall into this category. This philosophical distinction reinforces the idea that legitimacy can derive from process alone, irrespective of result.
3. Empirical Psychology and Tyler’s Model
Perhaps the most influential modern contributor to procedural justice theory is Tom R. Tyler, whose empirical research in the 1990s revolutionised how fairness is understood within institutional settings. Tyler demonstrated that individuals are more likely to view legal authorities as legitimate, and comply with their decisions, when they believe the procedures used are fair—even if the outcomes are unfavourable.
According to Tyler (1990), four key elements shape perceptions of procedural fairness:
Voice: Having the opportunity to present one’s side of the story.
Neutrality: Unbiased decision-making and transparent reasoning.
Respect: Treatment that conveys dignity and recognises one’s humanity.
Trust: Belief that the authority is benevolent and acts in good faith.
This psychological approach has since informed practice in law enforcement, organisational governance, education, and conflict resolution.
Common Applications of Procedural Justice
Procedural justice is not confined to courts or legal contexts. It has far-reaching applications in a wide range of social and organisational settings, wherever decisions are made and authority is exercised.
1. Legal and Policing Systems
In criminal justice, procedural fairness is central to rule of law. Fair trials, due process, and the presumption of innocence are fundamental legal rights. Procedural justice is especially critical in policing, where it has been shown to increase public trust, reduce recidivism, and improve cooperation between communities and law enforcement. In Australia, community policing initiatives increasingly embed procedural justice principles to address over-policing and institutional racism, particularly in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
2. Organisational Governance and Workplace Practices
In organisational settings, employees’ perception of fair procedures—such as in performance reviews, promotions, or disciplinary actions—directly impacts morale, productivity, and commitment. Transparent decision-making processes, inclusive consultation, and accountability mechanisms are all expressions of procedural justice in the workplace.
3. Education and Coaching
In educational and developmental contexts, procedural justice manifests in classroom management, assessment practices, and institutional decision-making. Students and participants who perceive that their voices are heard, that rules are applied consistently, and that educators act with integrity are more likely to engage meaningfully and accept feedback constructively. In coaching and mentoring, the ability to establish trust and mutual respect hinges on fair process.
4. Community Engagement and Participatory Governance
Procedural justice is also central to democratic participation and community mobilisation. Public consultations, participatory budgeting, and citizen juries exemplify efforts to make governance processes more inclusive and transparent. When marginalised groups are meaningfully included in decision-making, outcomes are more likely to be accepted and sustained. Conversely, the exclusion or tokenism of community voices often leads to policy failure or resistance.
5. Social Enterprises and Non-Profits
In the social enterprise and non-profit sectors, procedural justice influences both internal operations and external impact. Internally, governance structures that reflect equity and accountability help organisations maintain legitimacy. Externally, the design of services must avoid replicating hierarchical or paternalistic models. Co-design approaches, which involve service users in program development, embody procedural justice by validating experiential knowledge and ensuring responsiveness.
Retributive Justice: Theories of Desert, Moral Responsibility, and Their Contemporary Significance
Retributive justice is one of the oldest and most philosophically entrenched conceptions of justice, particularly in legal and moral discourse. Rooted in the belief that wrongdoing warrants punishment proportionate to the offence, it differs markedly from distributive and restorative forms of justice. Where distributive justice is concerned with the fair allocation of goods, and restorative justice seeks to repair harm, retributive justice is concerned with moral accountability — with holding individuals responsible for their actions through appropriate sanctions.
Despite its association with traditional legal systems, retributive justice has continuing relevance in contemporary debates surrounding crime, punishment, accountability, and institutional ethics. For changemakers working in activism, education, social enterprise, coaching, policy-making, and the non-profit sector, an understanding of retributive justice is crucial. It provides a framework for grappling with questions of responsibility, ethical boundaries, and the role of consequences in social regulation.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Retributive Justice
The intellectual foundations of retributive justice lie in moral philosophy and legal theory. Central to its logic is the idea that individuals are moral agents who can be held accountable for their choices, and that justice requires that they "get what they deserve." The theory has been refined and contested by various schools of thought over time.
1. Classical and Deontological Accounts
Retributive justice can be traced back to ancient legal codes such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Roman Twelve Tables, which articulated the lex talionis principle — an eye for an eye. This notion of proportionality remains a key feature of retributive frameworks today, although it has evolved significantly.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant provided a rigorous deontological defence of retributive justice in the 18th century. Kant argued that punishment is not a tool for social utility or deterrence but a moral imperative: “He must first be found worthy of punishment before any advantage may be looked for in the punishment” (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals). For Kant, justice demands that individuals be treated as ends in themselves, and that punishing wrongdoing respects the autonomy of the offender by holding them morally accountable.
2. Hegelian and Expressivist Theories
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel offered a more dynamic interpretation, seeing punishment as a negation of the wrong committed — a necessary dialectical response that reaffirms the authority of the law and the mutual recognition of persons. Modern expressivist theorists, such as Joel Feinberg and Antony Duff, have similarly argued that punishment serves to communicate condemnation and reaffirm societal values. It is not merely about retribution, but about publicly expressing disapproval in a morally constructive way.
3. Retribution Versus Consequentialism
A key distinction in justice theory is between retributive and consequentialist justifications of punishment. Retributivism sees punishment as justified in itself — because the wrongdoer deserves it — while consequentialism justifies punishment based on the future benefits it may produce, such as deterrence or rehabilitation. Many contemporary criminal justice systems blend these approaches, but the retributive rationale remains dominant in both public perception and legal doctrine.
Applications of Retributive Justice
Retributive justice continues to shape a wide array of institutional and cultural practices, particularly within criminal justice systems. However, its influence extends well beyond courts and prisons, touching on how societies understand blame, justice, and moral responsibility.
1. Criminal Law and Sentencing
The most direct application of retributive justice lies in criminal sentencing. Courts often calibrate penalties in accordance with the severity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. Retributive principles are enshrined in many legal systems’ commitment to proportionate sentencing and due process. For example, the principle that serious offences such as murder or sexual assault should carry heavier penalties than minor infractions reflects a retributive logic.
2. Transitional Justice and Human Rights Tribunals
Retributive justice also plays a significant role in transitional justice, particularly in post-conflict societies seeking accountability for crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Institutions such as the International Criminal Court and ad hoc tribunals (e.g., for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia) are grounded in the principle that grave moral wrongs require legal punishment as a form of justice and historical record.
3. Workplace and Institutional Ethics
In organisational contexts, retributive justice principles appear in disciplinary policies and codes of conduct. When employees violate ethical norms or organisational rules, sanctions are often imposed to uphold standards and affirm collective values. Here, punishment serves not only to deter future violations but also to restore organisational integrity.
4. Social Norms and Public Accountability
Outside formal institutions, public calls for accountability — including those found in social movements such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and anti-corruption campaigns — often invoke a retributive framework. Demands for consequences, resignations, or legal action against wrongdoers reflect a belief in the moral necessity of holding individuals and institutions to account. While these calls may also include restorative or transformative aims, the retributive impulse — the need to acknowledge harm and impose consequences — remains central.
Restorative Justice: Reimagining Accountability Through Repair, Relationship, and Reconciliation
Restorative justice represents a paradigm shift in the understanding and practice of justice. Moving beyond punitive or retributive models that focus on punishment and desert, restorative justice centres on the needs of those harmed, the responsibilities of those who have caused harm, and the active involvement of community in processes of healing, reparation, and reintegration. It asks a fundamentally different set of questions: not "what law was broken and how should the offender be punished?" but rather, "who was harmed, what are their needs, and whose obligation is it to meet them?"
Rooted in Indigenous worldviews, relational ethics, and contemporary justice theory, restorative justice has gained prominence across legal systems, educational settings, community development initiatives, and organisational conflict resolution processes. For changemakers whose work engages with systemic injustice, relational transformation, or the ethics of care, restorative justice offers not only a set of practices, but a moral and philosophical orientation to justice itself.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Restorative Justice
The foundations of restorative justice are as much ethical and cultural as they are juridical. Unlike retributive models, which derive legitimacy from the state’s authority to punish, restorative justice draws its legitimacy from interpersonal relationships and the moral imperative to repair harm and restore wholeness.
1. Indigenous and Communitarian Roots
Restorative justice is often traced to the justice practices of Indigenous peoples across the world, including Māori (New Zealand), First Nations (Canada and Australia), and Native American communities. These traditions prioritise communal dialogue, accountability through relationships, and the reintegration of both victims and offenders into the community. In many cases, justice is inseparable from spiritual and social healing.
In the Australian context, Aboriginal customary law has long included mechanisms for dispute resolution and communal reconciliation that pre-date the colonial legal system. Contemporary restorative practices continue to draw from these traditions, although tensions remain around appropriation, recognition, and structural power.
2. Contemporary Theoretical Contributions
Modern restorative justice theory emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, partly as a critique of the failures of retributive criminal justice systems — particularly their tendency to marginalise victims, exacerbate recidivism, and overlook relational dimensions of harm.
Howard Zehr, often considered a founding figure in the field, argued that restorative justice should be understood as a justice that heals, and proposed three core questions:
What is the harm?
Who has been harmed?
How can that harm be repaired?
Scholars such as John Braithwaite extended this thinking, introducing concepts such as reintegrative shaming, where condemnation of the harmful act is accompanied by support for the person, thus avoiding stigmatisation and facilitating rehabilitation.
3. Philosophical and Ethical Assumptions
At its core, restorative justice is underpinned by three interrelated ethical principles:
Relational accountability: Justice is not merely about abstract rules but about the integrity of relationships.
Participation and voice: All those affected by harm should have a meaningful say in how it is addressed.
Healing and reintegration: Justice involves repair, not revenge — and seeks to restore dignity to all involved.
These principles align closely with feminist ethics of care, communitarian political theory, and dialogical approaches to ethics and conflict transformation.
Common Applications of Restorative Justice
While originally developed in response to the perceived failings of criminal justice systems, restorative justice has expanded far beyond legal settings. Its practices are now applied in schools, workplaces, communities, and post-conflict societies.
1. Criminal Justice and Legal Systems
Restorative justice in legal contexts typically takes the form of victim-offender conferencing, circle processes, or family group conferencing. These practices bring together those who have caused harm, those affected by it, and relevant community members to discuss the impact of the offence and to agree upon steps for reparation.
In Australia, initiatives such as Youth Justice Conferencing in New South Wales and Koori Courts in Victoria demonstrate efforts to integrate restorative practices into the formal justice system, often in partnership with Indigenous communities.
Restorative justice has shown promising outcomes in reducing recidivism, improving victim satisfaction, and fostering a sense of closure. Importantly, it reframes justice not as a transaction between the state and the offender, but as a process of relational repair.
2. Education and School Discipline
In educational settings, restorative practices have increasingly replaced zero-tolerance and exclusionary disciplinary approaches. Restorative circles, peer mediation, and facilitated dialogue are used to address conflict, bullying, and classroom disruptions.
Rather than suspending or expelling students — measures that often reproduce inequality and exacerbate disengagement — restorative approaches encourage students to take responsibility, understand the impact of their actions, and actively contribute to solutions.
Restorative education practices have been adopted across Australia and internationally, including in initiatives such as the Restorative Practices Project in Victoria, which links school climate to both academic and socio-emotional outcomes.
3. Organisational Conflict and Workplace Wellbeing
Restorative justice has become an increasingly popular method for addressing conflict and misconduct in organisations. Whether in universities, non-profits, or corporate settings, restorative processes offer alternatives to formal grievance procedures by focusing on dialogue, mutual understanding, and the rebuilding of trust.
This approach is particularly useful in contexts of interpersonal harm, workplace bullying, or breaches of ethical conduct. It fosters a culture of accountability without necessarily resorting to punitive measures that may alienate or isolate individuals.
4. Community Development and Post-Conflict Reconciliation
In post-conflict and transitional justice contexts, restorative justice principles have been used to rebuild fractured societies. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, for instance, sought to acknowledge historical injustices while promoting healing and national unity.
In local communities, restorative justice practices are used to mediate neighbourhood disputes, address intergenerational trauma, and engage citizens in co-creating safer, more inclusive environments.
Social Justice: A Normative Vision for Equity, Dignity, and Collective Flourishing
Social justice is both a philosophical ideal and a practical framework that seeks to promote equity, human dignity, and full participation in social, economic, and political life. Unlike retributive or procedural models of justice, which are often confined to legal domains, social justice offers a more expansive, systemic lens. It interrogates how power, resources, and opportunities are distributed and how structural barriers produce and perpetuate inequality.
In recent decades, social justice has become a central concern for a wide range of actors — from educators and policy-makers to activists, community organisers, and social entrepreneurs. For changemakers across these domains, social justice provides not only an ethical orientation but also a set of principles and strategies for transforming unjust systems and building inclusive, life-affirming alternatives.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Social Justice
The concept of social justice is theoretically rich and historically layered. Its modern articulation emerges from Enlightenment ideas of equality and human rights but has evolved through critical engagements with political philosophy, economic theory, feminist thought, and decolonial critique.
1. Liberal Egalitarianism and Distributive Fairness
One of the most influential theoretical articulations of social justice comes from John Rawls, whose 1971 work A Theory of Justice advanced a model of justice as fairness. Rawls proposed two core principles: (1) equal basic liberties for all citizens, and (2) social and economic inequalities arranged to benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle). His famous thought experiment — the "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance" — asks individuals to design a just society without knowing their own future status or position.
Rawls’s model remains foundational in contemporary liberal political theory and underpins many policy frameworks focused on redistribution, equality of opportunity, and social welfare.
2. Marxist and Structuralist Critiques
While Rawls focused on fair procedures and outcomes within a capitalist democracy, Karl Marx and later critical theorists approached social justice through a structural lens. For Marxists, justice cannot be achieved without fundamentally transforming the relations of production that generate exploitation and alienation. This tradition emphasises the centrality of class struggle and the need for systemic change rather than incremental reform.
Structuralist and neo-Marxist thinkers, such as Antonio Gramsci and Nancy Fraser, have extended this analysis to include ideological hegemony and cultural recognition as integral components of justice, not merely economic redistribution.
3. Intersectionality and Identity-Based Justice
The contributions of feminist, critical race, queer, and disability scholars have been essential in expanding social justice theory. Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, reveals how overlapping systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, ableism) interact to produce unique forms of disadvantage. These frameworks challenge "one-size-fits-all" models of justice and call for context-sensitive, identity-aware responses that account for lived experience.
4. Decolonial and Indigenous Perspectives
Decolonial theorists and Indigenous scholars critique Western models of justice for their universalising tendencies and failure to address the legacies of colonisation, dispossession, and epistemic violence. They emphasise relationality, sovereignty, and self-determination as foundational to justice. In Australia, for instance, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander calls for treaty, truth-telling, and land rights articulate a distinct vision of social justice grounded in sovereignty, cultural continuity, and collective healing.
Applications of Social Justice in Practice
Social justice is both a guiding principle and a set of concrete practices. Its application varies across domains but consistently seeks to address systemic inequality, empower marginalised voices, and reshape institutions to better reflect the values of equity, inclusion, and participatory governance.
1. Education and Curriculum Reform
In the educational sector, social justice is reflected in efforts to decolonise the curriculum, address educational disadvantage, and foster critical pedagogy. Inspired by the work of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed), many educators adopt a transformative approach that encourages students to question dominant narratives, understand systems of power, and develop agency as change agents.
Educational equity initiatives — including inclusive pedagogy, scholarship programs for underrepresented groups, and community schooling models — embody social justice principles in practice.
2. Health, Housing, and Social Services
Social justice frameworks underpin public health strategies that address the social determinants of health — such as income, education, housing, and access to care. This perspective shifts the focus from individual behaviours to structural causes of illness and inequality.
Similarly, housing justice movements advocate for secure, affordable accommodation as a basic human right. In Australia, organisations like Everybody’s Home and Homelessness Australia highlight the intersections of housing insecurity with racial, gendered, and economic injustice.
3. Economic Justice and Labour Movements
Social justice is central to campaigns for fair wages, decent work, universal basic income, and labour rights. Movements for economic justice critique the neoliberal policies that have led to wage stagnation, precarious employment, and deepening inequality.
Social enterprises committed to ethical business models, circular economies, and inclusive hiring practices are operationalising economic justice principles in innovative ways.
4. Environmental and Climate Justice
Environmental degradation disproportionately impacts marginalised communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, low-income groups, and those in the Global South. Social justice in environmental contexts demands an intersectional approach that addresses not only ecological sustainability but also climate equity, intergenerational responsibility, and land justice.
The global climate justice movement — including groups such as School Strike 4 Climate and Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network — exemplifies the integration of social and ecological justice.
5. Law, Policy, and Governance
At the institutional level, social justice informs anti-discrimination law, affirmative action, human rights frameworks, and participatory policy design. Governments and non-profits increasingly adopt equity impact assessments to evaluate how policies affect diverse populations.
Truth commissions, reparations programs, and constitutional reform (such as Australia's Uluru Statement from the Heart) also reflect efforts to address historical and structural injustice through legal and political means.