Abstract Monetary damages is the ordinary remedy in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As such, arbitral practice relating to damages has direct, practical relevance for states and investors. The size of damages awards is also amongst the core critiques of ISDS. It is somewhat surprising, then, that the issue of damages has not figured prominently in discussions on reform of investment treaties and the ISDS mechanism, including those currently underway in Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). In this context, this article makes three contributions. First, it provides an overview of empirical trends in damages in ISDS. Secondly, it considers the extent to which tribunals’ approaches to damages raise the sorts of concerns with ISDS identified by UNCITRAL Working Group III, focusing specifically on concerns of correctness, consistency, legal and expert costs, and independence and impartiality. Thirdly, it identifies a range of possible procedural and substantive reform options that might alleviate these concerns.