Before we delve into the topic of this article, let’s provide a quick EUFLR 101:
The EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR) prohibits placing or making available products on the EU market, as well as exporting them from the EU, if forced labor was used at any stage of their production. This applies regardless of where in the supply chain forced labor occurs, whether at a company’s own operations or further upstream, and regardless of where that production takes place. The EUFLR becomes enforceable on December 14, 2027, and applies to all companies placing products on the EU market.
The EUFLR is a ban, not a due diligence law. It does not create new due diligence obligations. This is a clear distinction from the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) or Germany’s Supply Chain Act (LkSG), which impose an obligation of means, requiring companies to carry out due diligence. The EUFLR, by contrast, imposes an obligation of result: what matters is the outcome, not whether a due diligence process was followed.
So, the question it tackles isn’t “Do you have a DD system in place?” but rather “Was the product made with forced labor or not?.
Authorities are interested not simply in whether due diligence was conducted, but whether the identified risks have actually been addressed.
This means that, while due diligence is not, in itself, a defense if competent authorities conclude that the product was made with forced labor, an effective, meaningful due diligence system remains highly relevant and critical to meeting EUFLR requirements.
In this article, the CORE team breaks down what the EUFLR legal text and the European Commission’s EUFLR Guidelines say about due diligence and how companies can leverage their due diligence activities in a potential EUFLR investigation.
What is forced labor due diligence?
In the context of the EUFLR, due diligence refers to corporate activities and practices undertaken to identify, prevent, mitigate or bring to an end the use of forced labor in relation to products intended for the EU market or for export from it.
What does the EUFLR’s legal text say about due diligence?
The official legal text refers to due diligence 30 times and explicitly links the EUFLR to due diligence companies may already be conducting in line with EU or national due diligence laws covering forced labor risks as well as to due diligence guidelines and recommendations of international organizations, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
As such, the policymakers recognize that forced labor risks may already be assessed and addressed by corporate due diligence systems established in line with existing laws and international frameworks and that the activities and findings of such broader due diligence may produce information relevant to potential investigations launched by EUFLR enforcement authorities.
What do the European Commission’s Guidelines on implementing the EUFLR say about due diligence?
The EUFLR Guidelines were published by the European Commission in June 2026 to support the implementation of the EUFLR, including by providing non-binding guidance to companies on carrying out due diligence.
The term due diligence is used 134 times in the 74-page document and an entire section of 19 pages – Section 6 – is dedicated to forced labor due diligence. This alone demonstrates the importance the policymakers place on due diligence.
While also naming product traceability, responsible purchasing practices, certification schemes and worker-driven monitoring (which can all be measures resulting from due diligence) as alternative approaches to address forced labor in supply chains, the Guidelines explicitly recognize that due diligence can “help comply with the Regulation” and “help showcase efforts to identify and address forced labor risks during potential investigations”.[1]
The Guidelines adapt the OECD six-step due diligence framework specifically for forced labor and provide guidance on identifying risks and practical recommendations on how to prevent potential risks and remediate actual forced labor impacts.[2]
They also recognize the value of a holistic, integrated approach to human rights risk management by underlining that companies are not expected to duplicate efforts or develop a stand-alone forced labor due diligence policy or system but can use and adapt their existing human rights due diligence (or sustainability due diligence) systems to identify and address forced labor risks.
Finally, the Guidelines also mirror international standards also on the need for “responsible disengagement” as a last resort where it becomes the only viable measure to mitigate or end the forced labor, especially in cases of state-imposed forced labor.
What does the European Commission say about due diligence?
When describing the EUFLR investigation process on different platforms, European Commission representatives have highlighted that while due diligence is not mandatory nor demonstrates compliance with the EUFLR, good due diligence aligned with the OECD, UNGPs and ILO Conventions, will constitute the strongest evidence available to demonstrate how a company addresses forced labor risks. Consequently, during investigations companies should be prepared to demonstrate not only their processes but also the effectiveness of those processes.
The EUFLR database will, among other purposes, raise awareness of known forced labor risks and help companies prioritize due diligence.
The European Commission has also developed a single page, also known as the Forced Labour Single Portal, to house the various resources and information about the EUFLR in one place. This is also where forced labor concerns can be reported and the EUFLR team and in-country authorities can be contacted.
When is due diligence useful?
A company’s visibility into its supply chain and a thorough understanding of the human rights risks, specifically of the forced labor risks, along its value chain become especially valuable when responding to information requests by authorities. These can happen at least at three instances in an EUFLR investigation process:
a. Preliminary Phase
The first step in an investigation is to collect and assess all relevant information to determine if there is a violation is likely. [3] Relevant sources and types of information include information submitted by any individual or entity via the single information submission point, information in the forced labor risk database, information from authorities such as national labor inspectorates, health and safety authorities and tax authorities, and information from stakeholders such as civil society organizations, local communities, labor rights activists and trade unions.
If the authority’s initial assessment indicates a likely violation, then the preliminary phase of an investigation is initiated. It is in this preliminary phase that the authority can request information from businesses (i.e., economic operators) on their due diligence activities.
Given that companies have only 30 days to respond, any readily available information on the “actions to prevent, mitigate and bring to an end the risks of forced labor in [companies’] operations” will prove very useful in helping authorities make an accurate assessment at this preliminary phase.
If the authority’s initial assessment indicates a likely violation, then the preliminary phase of an investigation is initiated. It is in this preliminary phase that the authority can request information from businesses (i.e., economic operators) on their due diligence activities. Given that companies have only 30 days to respond, any readily available information on the “actions to prevent, mitigate and bring to an end the risks of forced labor in [companies’] operations” will prove very useful in helping authorities make an accurate assessment at this preliminary phase.
As the EUFLR explicitly states, information on appropriate due diligence activities should contribute to helping the economic operator present at a lower forced labor risk,[4] while the Guidelines reiterate that due diligence is one method to effectively demonstrate that the products under assessment were not made with forced labor
In addition, if companies are able to demonstrate that they are taking appropriate steps to address a forced labor situation, the authorities may grant additional time as part of their assessment. This additional time will be granted for companies to complete their mitigation actions to end the forced labor situation under assessment. Here again, companies with existing and appropriate due diligence activities for addressing forced labor may be more likely to obtain this additional time.
b. Formal Investigation
If the competent authority, within 30 working days after receiving the information from the assessed company, concludes that there is substantiated concern about the use of forced labor, it will launch an investigation. [5] At this stage, the company under assessment has the right to submit additional or more recent information not provided in the preliminary phase.
Here, meaningful due diligence will likely provide companies with closer, collaborative supplier relationships and greater transparency into their supply chains, potentially leading to faster provision of additional and more specific information and ultimately, saving companies under assessment time and money.
c. Review of Decisions and Appeals
Companies under assessment may request a review of a decision based on new substantial information, including information on the measures adopted to address forced labor and measures to prevent the recurrence of forced labor. [6]
Here, the statement we repeat frequently “Start somewhere.” once again proves useful. Carrying out due diligence will benefit companies even after the fact.
Which due diligence materials are useful?
A company with an effective human rights risk management system and ongoing due diligence activities can provide the materials an EUFLR enforcement authority will request in an investigation.
While there is no fixed list of evidence companies can provide to prevent investigations, the Guidelines provide an 11-bullet list of materials as examples companies can submit to inform authorities of their due diligence activities, all of which constitute information that a company with an effective human rights risk management system would possess.
These coincide entirely with the outcomes achieved at the various steps of the due diligence circle and include corporate policies, codes of conduct, supplier contracts, employee and supplier training, risk assessment results, mitigation measures, stakeholder engagement activities and due diligence reports.
Evidence submitted by companies to authorities during investigations will always be assessed on a case-by-case basis and their relevance and value will depend on the particular circumstances of the investigation.
The Guidelines also provide concrete examples of information companies can submit to demonstrate working conditions at assessed sites and for assessed products. These include worker testimonies and surveys, social audit findings, employment data, and photos of working and living conditions. On the product side, relevant information includes supply chain mapping covering manufacturers and suppliers, ownership structures of suppliers, locations of extraction and manufacturing sites, chain of custody certificates, as well as bills of materials, invoicing and payment records and production orders.
While some of this information is closely related to procurement and quality activities, a company with a meaningful human rights risk management system and specifically, with concrete, in-depth assessments, will also be able to demonstrate many of the documents and materials related to supply chain activities, supplier characteristics and workers at suppliers.
Conclusion
A meaningful and appropriate human rights due diligence system will already be covering forced labor including forced child labor as part of the wider spectrum of human rights risks in companies’ own operations and along their supply chains. These ongoing, iterative and holistic systems generate many of the outputs that become valuable and readily available evidence during an EUFLR investigation: supply chain visibility/supplier data, responsible procurement practices, closer and more collaborative supplier relationships, meaningful stakeholder engagement activities and documented preventive and remedial actions.
In a period where the majority of companies are stuck at the scoping and prioritization steps of due diligence and still investing heavily into risk identification and assessment, the EUFLR serves as an incentive to encourage companies to move to concrete action, and specifically to prevention, mitigation and remediation of impacts.
If you’d like to know more about the EUFLR services CORE offers and particularly, the holistic human rights risk management systems CORE builds for companies, contact Lisa Szeponik: lisa@peopleatcore.com
[1] Section 6.3.1 of the EUFLR Guidelines
[2] Section 6.4. of the EUFLR Guidelines
[3] Article 17 of the EUFLR and Article 4.4 of the Guidelines
[4] Recital 45 of the EUFLR.
[5] Article 18 of the EUFLR and Article 4.6. of the Guidelines
[6] Article 21 of the EUFLR and Article 4.9 of the Guidelines
