Trade-Based Measures: US UFLPA and EU Forced Labour Regulation
While due diligence laws regulate the process companies must follow, a parallel set of trade-based measures targets the products themselves. Rather than asking "did this company conduct adequate due diligence?", trade measures ask "was this product made with forced labour?" If the answer is yes - or cannot be convincingly disproved - the product is barred from the market. This approach is proving enormously consequential for global supply chains, particularly those touching the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and other high-risk geographies.
US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was signed into law on 23 December 2021 and became operative from 21 June 2022. It establishes what is known as a rebuttable presumption: any goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, or produced by certain entities identified on a UFLPA Entity List, are presumed to have been made with forced labour and are therefore prohibited from entry into the United States under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
The word "presumption" is critical. Unlike a categorical ban that simply blocks listed products, the UFLPA allows importers to rebut the presumption - but the bar is deliberately high. To overcome it, an importer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that:
- The goods were not produced, wholly or in part, by forced labour.
- The importer fully complied with the guidance issued by the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF).
- The importer has provided all information and documentation requested by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to support its claim.
The Rebuttable Presumption in Practice
Between June 2022 and December 2024, CBP reviewed over 10,000 shipments under the UFLPA, detaining goods worth billions of dollars. Electronics, solar panels, cotton apparel, tomato products, and polysilicon have all been detained. The practical effect has been that companies with any Xinjiang exposure in their supply chains - even several tiers removed - have had to conduct extensive supply chain tracing or find alternative sources to avoid shipment detention and loss of market access.
Withhold and Release Orders (WROs)
Before the UFLPA, the primary US trade tool against forced labour was the Withhold and Release Order mechanism, through which CBP can detain goods from specific entities or regions where it has "reasonable but not conclusive" evidence of forced labour. WROs are issued by the Commissioner of CBP and remain in place until the exporter provides sufficient evidence of compliance. Unlike the UFLPA, WROs do not carry a general regional presumption - they are targeted at specific suppliers or product categories.
As of early 2026, active WROs cover goods from Malaysia (rubber gloves, palm oil), China (seafood, hair products, cotton), and several other countries. The two mechanisms work in combination: the UFLPA sets a strong regional presumption for Xinjiang, while WROs address specific entities and issues elsewhere.
EU Forced Labour Regulation (2024)
The European Union adopted its Forced Labour Regulation in late 2024, creating an import ban mechanism analogous to the UFLPA but structured differently. Rather than a blanket regional presumption, the EU approach is investigation-led. The European Commission (for global or EU-wide cases) or member state competent authorities (for cases originating in their jurisdiction) can open investigations where there is sufficient reason to believe that products have been made using forced labour.
The core elements of the EU Forced Labour Regulation are:
- Preliminary phase: Authorities assess information submitted by any natural or legal person (including civil society organisations) and decide whether to open a formal investigation. A country or sector may be placed on a list of high-risk areas where state-imposed forced labour is a concern, creating a stronger presumption and shifting the burden to economic operators.
- Investigation phase: In-scope economic operators must provide all relevant information. Failure to cooperate results in a negative presumption. The investigation phase lasts a maximum of nine months (extendable to fifteen months for complex cases).
- Decision phase: If forced labour is confirmed, the authority issues a prohibition decision requiring the operator to withdraw the product from the EU market and dispose of stock. The decision is made publicly available.
- Review: Prohibition decisions may be reviewed if the operator demonstrates that it has eliminated forced labour from its supply chain.
Analogy: Product Safety Recalls Applied to Human Rights
The EU Forced Labour Regulation works similarly to a product safety recall system. When a safety authority discovers that a product poses risks to consumers, it can order the product withdrawn from sale. The EU mechanism applies the same logic to human rights: a product made with forced labour causes harm at the point of production, and just as a dangerous product should not be on European shelves, neither should one whose manufacture relied on coerced labour. The difference is that the "risk" is to the workers who made it, not the consumers who buy it.
Comparing the US and EU Approaches
| Feature | US UFLPA | EU Forced Labour Regulation |
|---|---|---|
| Core mechanism | Rebuttable regional presumption (Xinjiang) | Investigation-based prohibition decision |
| Who bears the burden | Importer must rebut by clear and convincing evidence | Economic operator must cooperate with investigation; non-cooperation creates negative presumption |
| Geographic scope | Xinjiang presumption + Entity List worldwide | Global; high-risk country/sector list creates enhanced scrutiny |
| Enforcement body | CBP (US Customs and Border Protection) | European Commission + member state authorities |
| Consequence of violation | Goods detained at the border; exclusion from US market | Mandatory market withdrawal; destruction or donation of stock |
| Coverage | Goods entering the US market (imports) | Goods placed on or exported from the EU market (imports and exports) |
Supply Chain Implications and Compliance Strategies
Together, the UFLPA and EU Forced Labour Regulation are fundamentally reshaping how global companies approach supply chain mapping. The key compliance requirements are:
- Deep tier tracing: Companies must map their supply chains beyond Tier 1 manufacturers to identify raw material sourcing. For cotton, for example, tracing must extend to farms or ginning facilities to determine whether Xinjiang-origin cotton entered the fibre supply chain.
- Documentation management: CBP's UFLPA guidance requires detailed records: shipping documents, mill certificates, affidavits, and audit reports that together form a chain of custody demonstrating the product's origin and production conditions.
- Alternative sourcing: Many companies have proactively diversified sourcing away from high-risk regions to avoid the administrative burden of rebuttal, particularly for commodity inputs like polysilicon (solar panels) and cotton.
- Technology adoption: DNA tracing, isotope analysis, and blockchain-based provenance tracking are increasingly being used to verify fibre and mineral origin claims that cannot be established through documentary evidence alone.
Example: Solar Panel Supply Chains and the UFLPA
The solar industry faced acute UFLPA exposure because approximately 35-45% of global polysilicon production had been concentrated in Xinjiang. Shipments of solar modules and cells were detained in large volumes at US ports after the UFLPA became operative in mid-2022. Major manufacturers responded by building out polysilicon production in other Chinese provinces, Southeast Asia, and Europe. US project developers began requiring suppliers to provide polysilicon origin documentation from approved non-Xinjiang sources as a standard contract term, fundamentally restructuring global solar supply chains within two years of the law's enactment.
Key Takeaways
- 1The US UFLPA (operative June 2022) creates a rebuttable presumption that all goods from Xinjiang were made with forced labour, placing the burden on importers to prove otherwise with clear and convincing evidence to CBP
- 2Withhold and Release Orders are the older, entity-specific US mechanism, complementing the UFLPA by targeting particular suppliers and product categories outside Xinjiang
- 3The EU Forced Labour Regulation (2024) uses an investigation-led model: authorities investigate suspected forced labour and can ban products from the EU market if confirmed, with a high-risk country list shifting the burden to operators
- 4Both mechanisms require companies to conduct deep-tier supply chain tracing, maintain robust documentation, and - in many cases - diversify sourcing away from high-risk geographies
- 5Technology solutions including DNA fibre tracing, isotope analysis, and blockchain provenance tools are increasingly critical for establishing credible chain-of-custody evidence