See Part 1 of this blog here: The EU Forced Labour Regulation: reflections from a human rights perspective – Part 1 | OHRH
1. Introduction
This is the second part of a two-part blog dedicated to Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market. This part of the blog considers the Regulation from a human rights perspective, focusing on the issues of burden of proof, due diligence and remediation, and concluding with observations on international policy coherence.
2. Burden of proof
The Regulation places on competent authorities the burden of establishing whether forced labour has been used at any stage of the production, manufacture, harvest or extraction of a product placed or made available on the market or for export. Where, in response to a request for information on the part of a lead competent authority, an economic operator or a public authority refuses or fails, without a valid justification, to provide the information requested, provides incomplete or incorrect information with the objective of blocking the investigation, provides misleading information or otherwise impedes the investigation, including when a risk of forced labour imposed by state authorities is identified, the lead competent authority should be able to establish that the prohibition of products made with forced labour has been violated on the basis of any other relevant and verifiable information gathered during the preliminary phase of the investigation or during the investigation.
3. Due diligence
Recital 5 states that the Union promotes due diligence in line with international guidelines and principles established by international organisations, including the ILO, the OECD and the UN.
The Regulation does not seek to establish new due diligence obligations beyond those that exist already under EU or national law, although it complements existing horizontal and sectoral EU initiatives, such as corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations. Under the Regulation, due diligence refers to efforts by the economic operator to implement mandatory requirements, voluntary guidelines, recommendations or practices to identify, prevent, mitigate and bring to an end the use of forced labour with respect to products that are to be placed or to be made available on the Union market or to be exported (Article 2(3)).
The Regulation states that:
Carrying out due diligence in relation to forced labour should contribute to helping the economic operator to be at a lower risk of having forced labour in its operations and supply chains. Appropriate due diligence in accordance with relevant Union law and international standards can help to identify and address forced labour in the supply chain. (Recital 45).
It recalls the Minerals Regulation (EU) 2017/821) obligation to carry out due diligence consistent with Annex II to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. It further recalls due diligence obligations under the Deforestation Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 regarding certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation.
The Regulation requires the Commission to develop guidelines on due diligence on forced labour, child labour, and forced labour imposed by state authorities. The guidelines must take into account applicable Union and national law, guidelines and recommendations from international organisations, as well as the size and economic resources of economic operators (particularly SMEs), different types of suppliers along the supply chain, and different sectors. Such guidelines should build on the 2021 Guidance published by the Commission and the European External Action Service on due diligence for Union businesses to address the risk of forced labour in their operations and supply chains. The deadline for the issuance of guidelines is June 14th, 2026.
4. Remediation
While the Regulation does not impose obligations for remediation, it recognises the fundamental right to effective remedies for violations of fundamental rights. It also acknowledges that existing (hard and soft) law affirms the right to an effective remedy for business-related human rights violations or abuses, including forced labour. Recital 36 defines remediation as follows:
Remediation is understood to be the restitution of the affected person or persons or communities to a situation equivalent or as close as possible to the situation they would be in had forced labour not occurred, proportionate to the company’s involvement in the forced labour, including financial or non-financial compensation provided by the company to a person or persons affected by forced labour and, where applicable, reimbursement of the costs incurred by public authorities for any necessary remedial measures.
It requires that the Network collect data on remediation Article 6(7)(o), and that the Commission Guidelines on due diligence address remediation Article 11 (b)). The Regulation´s evaluation and review clause envisages an impact assessment of the potential extension of the Regulation’s scope to include remediation obligation (Article 38(4)).
5. International policy coherence
The Regulation promotes international policy coherence and international cooperation.
First, it is grounded in international law, explicitly incorporating international human rights treaties, such as ILO Conventions, and influential soft law like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (e.g., with respect to remediation).
Second, it relies upon the existing international legal obligations of Member States, recalling that all Member States have ratified ILO Conventions 29 and 105 on Forced Labour, and ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, noting that Member States are “therefore legally obliged to prevent and eliminate the use of forced labour and to report regularly to the ILO.”
Third, it emphasizes international cooperation. Article 13 provides that the Commission shall cooperate and exchange information with the authorities of third countries, international organisations, civil society representatives, trade unions, business organisations and other relevant stakeholders. It also provides that international cooperation with the authorities of third countries shall take place in a structured way, such as in the context of existing dialogues with third countries, including human rights and political dialogues.
6. Conclusions
While the EU’s new Forced Labour Regulation is product-based and has as its legal bases TFEU provisions related to the internal market and the common commercial policy, it also advances fundamental rights goals and has a clear grounding in international human rights law. In terms of normative anchoring, structural features and operational principles, the Regulation reflects a commitment to complementarity and policy coherence. In a broader sense therefore, it also attests to the possibility of what the UN High Commissioner has called a “human rights economy” – further evidence that market and rights goals do not necessarily exist in tension and may even be mutually reinforcing.
0 Comments