Overview
Introduction
Within weeks of one another, the world’s two most influential forced labor enforcement authorities released guidance documents addressing forced labor import compliance. On June 9, 2026, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published its Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers, covering Section 307 of the Tariff Act, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and CAATSA. Soon thereafter, the European Commission (EC) released guidance on the application of the EU Forced Labor Regulation (EUFLR).
Both documents share a common objective: helping companies understand, identify, and address forced labor risks in increasingly complex global supply chains. However, the documents reveal different visions of compliance and enforcement. CBP focuses mostly on traceability, documentary substantiation, and the practical realities of customs enforcement; the EC emphasizes human rights due diligence systems and corporate governance aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and other European sustainability regulation. As forced labor import bans proliferate globally, the documentary and traceability-based approach reflected in the CBP guidance is likely to exert increasing influence on how those regimes are enforced. Indeed, in practice, a company seeking to address potential CBP and EUFLR concerns will likely need to gather a similar core of traceability information. At the same time, there remain meaningful differences in the baseline governance and risk-management measures companies need to show under the different regimes, and neither regulation lives in a vacuum: the expansion of mandatory human rights due diligence laws means that multinational companies will increasingly need to operate under both models simultaneously.
The CBP Forced Labor Guidance
CBP’s guidance is largely a legal compliance document, explaining how importers can satisfy the evidentiary requirements of applicable forced labor import laws. The guidance was issued against the backdrop of increasing US forced labor enforcement activity and responds to a practical need among importers for greater clarity regarding the evidence CBP considers persuasive when evaluating admissibility. As a result, the guidance functions more as an operational roadmap for importers anticipating possible scrutiny than as a corporate governance framework.
The guidance acknowledges human rights due diligence systems, including supplier engagement, risk assessments, and remediation. However, these are relevant as companies seek exceptions for goods that have automatic human rights triggers that normally warrant exclusion, such as ties to Xinjiang; they are not applicable day to day for most imports, which focus on admissibility. Instead, CBP is fundamentally concerned with evidence. The operative question for CBP is whether an importer can establish that goods entering the United States were not produced with forced labor. To answer that question, the guidance emphasizes supply-chain mapping, traceability, certificates of origin, bills of lading, purchase orders, proof of payment, production records, and other forms of documentary substantiation. Importers are encouraged to understand production processes in granular detail and to trace products back to raw material sources so that they can demonstrate admissibility if goods are detained.
The guidance recognizes that forced labor risks often arise far upstream in complex supply chains, making visibility into the origin and movement of materials increasingly important. CBP therefore places substantial emphasis on tracing the origin and movement of materials, and highlights scientific verification tools such as isotopic testing as methods that may help validate supplier claims. The guidance is ultimately intended to be used as a compliance tool, or a practical playbook to help companies gather and preserve evidence needed to establish admissibility.
The EU Forced Labor Guidance
The European Commission’s guidance is meant to assist with implementation of the EUFLR, but serves a different function, with a different vision. The EUFLR prohibits products made with forced labor from being placed on, made available in, or exported from the EU market, but the regulation does not address how companies should identify risks, organize compliance programs, and demonstrate responsible conduct. The European Commission’s guidance was issued to provide businesses with a framework for understanding how to identify and address forced labor risks across operations and value chains. The document draws heavily upon the UNGPs and OECD Due Diligence Guidance and seeks to align compliance with other EU measures requiring human rights due diligence, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and the EU Batteries Regulation (EUBR).
Accordingly, the guidance presents compliance as an ongoing management process rather than an evidentiary proof exercise. It organizes due diligence around six core elements: integrating due diligence into policies and management systems, identifying and assessing risks, preventing and mitigating harms, monitoring effectiveness, communicating externally, and participating in remediation where necessary. Stakeholder engagement occupies a central position as a critical human rights due diligence practice. The guidance therefore directs companies to develop governance systems capable of identifying and addressing labor risks before they result in regulatory violations, offering a roadmap for building and maintaining a credible human rights due diligence program consistent with traditional principles and enabling compliance with the EUFLR, as well as the CSDDD and other EU laws.
Notwithstanding the alignment with the EU’s broader sustainability regulatory framework, the EUFLR remains fundamentally distinct because it is an obligation of result, not effort: a best-in-class program that identified forced labor in the supply chain but failed to eliminate it will not get credit or relief from possible sanctions. As a result, in light of the EUFLR’s two-tier investigation process, to preempt an investigation or remove a ban, companies will need to show evidence of an effective due diligence system and also be prepared to show documentation of supply-chain traceability for any given shipment.
Two Different Visions of Compliance
Although the documents reflect competing visions, there are substantial overlaps. Both seek to combat forced labor in global supply chains. Both encourage companies to understand their suppliers, assess risks, investigate red flags, and take corrective action when concerns are identified Both endorse risk-based approaches, supplier engagement, supply-chain visibility, remediation, and internationally recognized standards, such as the International Labour Organization’s forced labor indicators. And both are tied to trade measures that take a strict-liability approach to addressing forced labor.
Yet they approach the problem from fundamentally different institutional perspectives. CBP takes the compliance perspective of an agency charged with enforcing import bans, and asks whether an importer can establish, through mapping, traceability and evidence that a particular shipment was not produced with forced labor. Whereas the EC focuses on human rights processes, CBP focuses on proof. The EC guidance, rooted in business and human rights frameworks, views forced labor compliance as a governance challenge, asking whether a company has developed systems to identify, prevent, mitigate, and remediate human rights risks throughout its operations and value chains. Ultimately, however, EUFLR enforcement will depend not only on how well designed such governance is: it will turn on how effective it is in practice, and how well a company can demonstrate that effectiveness.
Why the Documentary Model May Prevail
Given the differing emphases, the real question is which model will exert greater influence as forced labor import bans proliferate globally. Following the recent US investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, concluding that its 60 primary trading partners have failed to adopt or enforce forced labor import bans, a bevy of new laws have emerged around the world. These include new import bans in Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, El Salvador, Cambodia, Guatemala, and Ecuador, with bills and proposals in other markets. Given the global influence of the United States and the EU, their guidance documents are particularly important reference points for future enforcement regimes.
Focusing on forced labor import bans alone, between the CBP and EC emphases, it seems more likely that the documentary and traceability-focused approach reflected in the CBP guidance may become increasingly influential. Most importantly, it is administratively workable. Border officials operate under significant resource constraints and must review large volumes of imports moving through ports on tight timelines. Documentation, supply-chain maps, transactional records, and traceability evidence can be reviewed through relatively standardized procedures and provide a tangible basis for enforcement decisions. While disputes may arise regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the underlying framework is concrete and capable of relatively consistent application.
By contrast, many of the concepts central to traditional human rights due diligence are inherently more subjective, nuanced, and less accessible to port and border personnel. Determining whether a company’s efforts are sufficiently meaningful, appropriate, effective, or proportionate is harder to evaluate consistently in the context of real-time import enforcement. For customs authorities that must decide whether goods should be admitted, detained, excluded, or seized, a model centered on proof, traceability, and verifiable records offers obvious practical advantages. That is true under forced labor import bans or market access regimes like the EUDR, where documented due diligence and traceability are condition for importation.
However, the likely ascendancy of the documentary model in the context of forced labor import bans does not diminish the continuing importance of traditional human rights due diligence. For multinational companies, the practical question is not whether to adopt the EU or CBP model. They will need both. The CSDDD remains grounded in the UNGP and OECD framework, and other measures, like the EU Batteries Regulation, require companies to establish governance systems, risk assessment processes, and mitigation mechanisms. Even CBP recognizes that due diligence systems are relevant for detained goods and promotes them as reducing the risks of forced labor in operations and supply chains.
As a result, traceability, supply-chain mapping, and documentary evidence will become essential for demonstrating compliance with import bans, while human rights due diligence systems will remain necessary for broader corporate sustainability and supply-chain governance obligations. The future will not involve the victory of one model over the other, but both serving different regulatory and governance objectives.
