As Europe moves towards preparing for the EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR), one crucial question arises: how can companies and government authorities identify where the biggest risks of forced labor lie?
Back in February 2025, CORE team’s Cecilia Barral Diego and our partner Liesbeth Unger , Founder of Human Rights at Work, published a report titled “Assessing Forced Labour Risks in Dutch Imports”, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Our report provides a comprehensive overview of where forced labor risks are highest by product category and import country. It offers a concrete starting point for governments and businesses to prioritize action and prepare for the EUFLR.
This September, we were invited to present the findings at the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands to the EU in Brussels, to an audience of civil society organizations, country representatives and policymakers including representatives from the EU Commission.
Our report was used as an example and inspiration for how the EU can identify forced labor risks for the database it intends to develop.
Identifying Forced Labor Risks in Global Supply Chains
Understanding forced labor risks means looking at where the risks are most severe, most prevalent and most likely to occur. It goes beyond isolated incidents to identify broader patterns of vulnerability: from agricultural commodities and textiles to machinery.
The report combines data on the prevalence of forced labor and research on the vulnerability of the workforce in certain supply chains with international trade data to show which products and countries pose the highest inherent risks.
This does not mean that forced labor always exists in those high-risk countries or product categories. Rather, it signals where companies and authorities should investigate further and prioritize action. This risk-based approach can also support the European Commission as it develops its own system for screening and prioritizing cases under the EUFLR.
The September gathering in Brussels was a great opportunity to share our methodology, the challenges we faced in the process, and our main findings. Some key messages we shared include:
- Forced labor risks depend on multiple factors including origin country, raw materials sourced, the involvement of workers in a vulnerable position and the government’s capacity to protect workers from forced labor.
- No country is exempt from the risk of forced labor. Forced labor can occur everywhere, even in low or medium-risk countries, especially in high-risk sectors, such as agriculture.
- Looking at the overall risk level of the product category is a good starting point for prioritization. This is because supply chains are often highly fragmented, with different components and materials sourced from different locations, which makes it rarely possible to assess every origin in detail.
As part of our report presentation, we also shared our recommendations for policymakers and for businesses.
Understanding how to assess forced labor risks is critical for implementing the EUFLR.
The overall aim of the EUFLR is not to ban products from the EU market or label countries or products as “guilty”, but to encourage companies to prevent forced labor.
With a risk-based approach companies can focus their due diligence efforts where it truly matters. Similarly, authorities can concentrate their efforts on addressing the most severe risks.
Remediating Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains
We also pointed out during the presentation the challenges around remediation.
The EUFLR will require companies under a (preliminary) investigation to demonstrate that their due diligence is effective, meaning that it brings to an end andremediates forced labor.[1] For those companies that, following an investigation from the competent authority, face an import ban, they will be required to prove that they have eliminated forced labor for the ban to be lifted.[2] Even if the law does not provide a definition of what “eliminate” means, it should be read in line with international standards, all of which consider remediation as a key element when addressing human rights violations.[3]
Remediation therefore should be interpreted in alignment with international human rights standards such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the OECD Due Diligence Guidance or the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). This means bringing affected people as close as possible to a position before the harm occurred. This could be done through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation or satisfaction, which can be used, individually or together, to restore as far as possible the rights and dignity of those affected.
Remediation should always be proportionate to the company’s involvement in the forced labor violation.
Where the company has caused or contributed to the adverse impact, it carries a direct responsibility to provide or participate in effective remediation. Contribution can take many forms, including enabling, facilitating or incentivizing the impact through its own business conduct. The degree of causation or contribution will determine the scope and depth of remedial action required.
In the supply chain context, companies are often linked to impacts through their business relationships rather than directly causing or contributing to them. In such cases, the appropriate response is usually to use leverage to influence suppliers and partners, ensuring corrective actions are taken, and to strengthen due diligence processes to prevent recurrence. While full remediation may not always be possible where a company is only linked, its responsibility lies in active engagement, escalation where necessary and continuous monitoring of supplier practices.
Yet in practice, remediation is often complex and takes time, especially in forced labor contexts. Restoring rights, changing recruitment systems or restructuring supplier relationships cannot be done overnight.
That is why, the European Commission’s upcoming guidelines,[4] should clarify what constitutes a “reasonable” timeline for remediation: one that acknowledges the complexity and depth of systemic issues but still requires companies to demonstrate effective action. Without this clarity, there is a risk that due diligence becomes a tick-box exercise rather than a real driver for change.
The EUFLR is also clear on avoiding a cut-and-run approach and prioritizing engagement. Indeed, it states that “[c]hanging one’s supply chain, in the sense of relying on different suppliers, cannot be considered as a way to eliminate the forced labour regarding the product concerned.”[5]
Disengaging Responsibly as a Last Resort
In certain situations, however, disengagement may be the only viable option, for example where leverage is exhausted, there is no cooperation or action plans have failed. Even then, disengagement should be carried out responsibly and only as a last resort. In this context, the European Commission is also expected to issue guidance on responsible disengagement.[6]
As we highlight in our report, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) provide practical guidance for such decisions. Companies should weigh at least four key aspects:
- the leverage over the business partner,
- the criticality of the business relationship,
- the severity of the adverse impactand
- the likelihood of human rights harm caused by the disengagement itself.[7]
The EUFLR explicitly recognizes the last point, stating that competent authorities should consider the “consequences on affected workers”,[8] when assessing disengagement decisions.
Disengaging in the Case of State-Imposed Forced Labor
The EUFLR places special attention on the identification of cases of state-imposed forced labor, for example, when prioritizing products to be investigated[9] or when requiring the European Commission to include economic sectors and geographic areas with evidence of state-imposed forced labor into the database of forced labor risks[10] or to provide specific guidance on the topic for companies.[11]
In cases of state-imposed forced labor, i.e., when the state itself is committing the harm, the ability of companies to meet their corporate responsibility to respect human rights is severely constrained, making it practically impossible to prevent, mitigate, end or remediate adverse human rights impacts, including through the use of leverage. As we also recommended in our report, when a link to state-imposed forced labor has been identified, companies are required to initiate swift disengagement, given that leverage is unavailable and proper due diligence is not possible. [12]
Looking Ahead to the Meaningful Implementation of the EUFLR
Forced labor is not a distant issue. It is woven into the global economy: in the clothes we wear, the food we eat and the technology we use. Mapping these risks is a crucial first step in turning regulation into real change.
The ultimate goal of the EUFLR should not be seen as banning products from entering markets, but as incentivizing companies to implement meaningful and effective human rights due diligence that prevents and remediates forced labor in supply chains.
As the European Commission now works on a database, guidelines and enforcement mechanisms for the EUFLR, our hope is that the lessons from our study can contribute to building a credible and effective system that supports governments, businesses and civil society.
Cecilia Barral Diego (CORE) and Liesbeth Unger (Human Rights @Work)
You can read the report “Assessing Forced Labour Risks in Dutch Imports” commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs here: https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2025/02/28/assessing-forced-labour-risks-in-dutch-imports
Footnotes:
[1] Art. 17 (1) of the EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR) for the preliminary phase of investigation, and Art. 20 of the EUFLR where failure to provide such information and evidence during the investigation phase may lead to the competent authority to establish a violation of the prohibition under Article 3 of the EUFLR.
[2] Art. 20 (5) and 21 (3) of the EUFLR.
[3] See Responsible Contracting Project (RCP) Policy Brief, Forced Labor Trade Bans and HRDD: Why Responsible Contracting Matters (2025), page 15, available at https://www.responsiblecontracting.org/forced-labor-ban-policy-briefold
[4] Art. 11 of the EUFLR. The Commission is required to make available guidelines on different aspects of the due diligence in this context, incl. on remediation (see Art. 11 (b)).
[5] See Recital 48 of the EUFLR
[6] See Recital 36 of the EUFLR.
[7]See Principle 19 of the UNGPS. See also, UNOHR, ‘Business and Human Rights in Challenging Contexts Considerations for Remaining and Exiting’ (2023) In this guidance note these four factors are spelled out. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/business/bhr-in-challenging-contexts.pdf
[8] See Recital 59 of the EUFLR.
[9] See Art. 14 .2 (a) of the EUFLR.
[10] See Recital 31 and Art. 3 of the EUFLR.
[11] See Article 11 (f) of the EUFLR.
[12] See also, Anti-Slavery International, Factsheets on “How to address state-imposed forced labor in accordance with international responsible” (2025), available at https://www.antislavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SIFL-factsheets-May-25.pdf
