European Commission publishes Guidelines for the Forced Labour Regulation

On 26 June 2026, the European Commission published its guidelines on the application of the Forced Labour Regulation (FLR) (the Guidelines). The Guidelines are not legally binding, but are intended to supplement the FLR, supporting companies in their preparation and clarifying procedural elements of the regulation. In this blog, we consider some of the practical points addressed in the Guidelines.

Scope of the Forced Labour Regulation

From 14 December 2027, the FLR prohibits any product made with forced labour from being placed or made available, or exported from, the EU market, regardless of the product’s origin. The Guidelines clarify that the definition of “product” is wide, covering manufactured and agricultural products, as well as products that are extracted, such as minerals and other raw materials. However, the Guidelines are clear that the FLR does not cover services, even if they are linked to the placement of the product on the EU market (e.g. transport, warehousing and logistics). 

The prohibition applies to products regardless of whether they (or their components) were produced in or imported into the EU before the FLR takes effect. In practice, this means that companies will need to think about the life-cycle of their products ahead of the December 2027 deadline, if those products are likely to remain on, or only be introduced to, the market after that date.

Identifying products that might be tainted with forced labour

The FLR sets out a risk-based approach for competent authorities to follow, so that efforts and enforcement resources can focus on forced labour instances of the highest risk and greatest potential impacts. Competent authorities will need to assess the scale and severity of the suspected forced labour, the quantity or volume of products on the EU market, and the share of the part of the product suspected to have been made with forced labour. The greater each of these factors is, the more likely it is that the product would be investigated for forced labour. 

Competent authorities have discretion to decide who to investigate, by considering the proximity of an economic actor to the forced labour, its leverage and its size and economic resources. The Guidelines note that the economic actors with the closest proximity to the forced labour are likely to be those upstream, such as suppliers, producers or manufacturers, but these may not be the ones with the greatest leverage and are unlikely to be the sole focus of the competent authority. Companies should be aware that they could be drawn into an investigation if there is a substantiated concern of forced labour further up their supply chain; this may potentially result in their products being withheld or withdrawn from the market.

How to address state-imposed forced labour

The Guidelines consider how to assess evidence in the case of state-imposed forced labour (SIFL) and how a company could go about addressing risks in its supply chain that arise from SIFL. They note that on-site assessments and audits are likely to be “deeply compromised”, and unrestricted contact with stakeholders is unlikely to be possible. Indirect and circumstantial evidence, such as data from the International Labour Organisation, civil society and independent experts, may be needed to overcome evidentiary challenges. 

The Guidelines state that companies should consider prioritising state-imposed forced labour risks due to their severity and high likelihood in certain sectors, supply chains and locations. However, these might also be the cases where a company has the least leverage and ability to effect any change. In such cases, the Guidelines suggest that responsible disengagement may be the only viable measure to mitigate or end the forced labour risk. 

Handling an enquiry from a competent authority

The Guidelines are clear that any decision to ban a product from the EU market must only be taken after a thorough investigation. If the suspected forced labour takes place inside the EU, it will be the competent authority in the relevant Member State that investigates; outside the EU, it will be the European Commission. 

If the initial assessment carried out by the competent authority indicates a likelihood of forced labour in the product’s supply chain, it may initiate the preliminary phase of an investigation. In this phase, companies are given the opportunity to provide information relevant to the product under assessment, specifically about how they address forced labour risks in their supply chain in respect of the relevant products, or why the competent authority’s concerns are not relevant. 

Companies have 30 working days to respond to a request from a competent authority, a timeframe which requires them to have the relevant documentation and evidence readily available. Importantly, the Guidelines state that, while supply chain due diligence is a useful way to demonstrate the absence of forced labour, the FLR does not impose due diligence obligations and other approaches (product traceability, responsible purchasing practices, etc.) can also be effective. Companies should therefore think about their practices in the round, and how these might support an enquiry if needed.

What can companies do to prepare?

The short time to respond to an enquiry is not sufficient to set up new processes or gather new evidence. Good governance and processes are therefore key to being prepared. While the FLR does not impose due diligence obligations, it does recognise the effectiveness of due diligence as a tool to prevent and mitigate forced labour risks. The Guidelines specifically reference the OECD Due Diligence Guidance as the model on which companies should base their practices, and its six-step process helps set up a company for the long-term.

Specific recommendations under the Guidelines include building human rights due diligence into existing practices and embedding it into oversight and management systems. Expectations and policies should also be incorporated into engagement with business partners across the supply chain, and should inform new business relationships. Companies are therefore recommended to review their existing policies and governance measures to ensure they are fit for purpose. Identifying the gaps now will enable a company to prioritise where to focus so it can mitigate the risk of operational disruption once the FLR is in force.