Forced labour occurs everywhere in the world, including within the borders of the wealthiest countries. But high-income countries also import an estimated US$468 billion worth of products at risk of being made with forced labour from middle to low-income countries, where the highest prevalence of forced labour is found. The UK for example, is estimated to import US$26.1 billion products at-risk of being made using forced labour annually from high-risk sectors such as electronics, garments, textiles, timber, and fish. To address forced labour in global supply chains, many governments including the UK, have introduced legislative instruments such as supply chain transparency legislation, human rights due diligence legislation or forced labour import bans.
Forced labour import bans restrict the importation of goods into a given market on the grounds of forced labour (private and/or state-imposed forced labour) and are increasingly being developed in Europe and North America. For example, the European Union Forced Labour Regulation was adopted in 2024 and will start applying from 2027. In 2023 Mexico introduced a forced labour import ban law and in 2022 Canada introduced forced labour import ban provisions into its existing legislation.
But do forced labour import bans work to prevent products made with forced labour from entering a market? And more importantly, do they contribute to reducing forced labour in global supply chains? What lessons can the UK Government learn from the implementation of these tools elsewhere?
As the first country to ever develop a law to prohibit the importation of goods made with forced labour into a given market, the U.S. can provide some insights into the effectiveness of forced labour import bans. The U.S. is also the only country in the world to have more than one piece of legislation prohibiting the importation of goods made with forced labour and it is the highest importing market in the world, with an estimated US$169.6 billion worth of goods at risk of forced labour being imported into the country.
In 2021 we undertook a rapid evidence review of the existing publicly available evidence on the effectiveness of forced labour import bans. We found that forced labour import bans had positive short-term impacts mainly by driving change in business behaviour, but the long-term effects of the bans was unclear, especially in terms of impacts on trade and workers.
Three years later, we undertook an updated evidence review and found more evidence of specific cases of some positive changes in business behaviour, but identified that these changes mostly occurred in businesses in the middle of the supply chains (e.g., large suppliers in the Global South) rather than at the top (i.e., lead firms in the Global North) and that such changes were also influenced by a mix of pressures (mostly economic) from diverse stakeholders. Moreover, we found that the impact of forced labour import bans on trade and workers remains understudied.
The updated 2024 evidence review also provides additional insights into the effectiveness of forced labour import bans compared to what we knew before based on the 2021 evidence review. For example:
- Certain factors can hinder the potential of forced labour import bans in preventing the entry of products made with forced labour into a market. For example, legal loopholes such as a “consumptive demand” (i.e. goods made with forced labour were allowed to enter the country if the U.S. demand for such products could not be met domestically) and a “de minimis” provision (a provision that allows for goods valued below $800 USD to enter the U.S. without going through scrutiny by the enforcement authorities). Also, transshipment strategies from companies (importing through indirect routes), a lack of traceability systems, a lack of the prohibition extending to online sales, and limited resources and capacities of the enforcement authorities..
- The lack of remediation to affected workers as a condition to lift a ban in forced labour import ban laws hinders the potential of forced labour import bans to provide remedy to workers.
- The lack of the prohibition extending to exports and a lack of conceptualisation of remediation as prevention hinders the potential of forced labour import bans in preventing forced labour in global supply chains.
- Workers and people with lived experience have largely been excluded from the development and implementation of forced labour import bans.
- Shifting the burden of proof onto importers may be more effective in preventing products with forced labour from entering a country.
In sum, the updated review on forced labour import bans, with evidence mostly from section 307 of the U.S. Tariff Act and the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA), suggests that it is not yet possible to provide a conclusive answer as to their effectiveness because publicly available evidence on the bans is limited and of relatively low quality.
However, forced labour import bans may be part of a “smart mix” of measures to address forced labour in global supply chains: they have prevented some products made with forced labour from entering a market and in some cases, influenced some changes in businesses and governments affected (or threatened) by these bans that relate to identifying, preventing, mitigating, monitoring and remediating forced labour in global supply chains.
We expect the evidence to increase with time as the implementation of forced labour import bans increases, including when the European Forced Labour Regulation starts applying in 2027, and as researchers undertake more empirical studies. Empirical research should explore, among other things, the impact of forced labour import bans on workers and businesses’ investment decisions to better understand the effectiveness of forced labour import bans. Questions for the future, such as the interaction in practice between forced labour import bans, mandatory human rights due diligence laws, and transparency legislation should also be considered by researchers in due time when these three pieces of legislation are enforced and implemented in parallel within a country.
Dr Sofia Gonzalez is a Research Fellow in Business, ESG & Modern Slavery at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, part of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL). She is also a Research Fellow at the Modern Slavery and Human Rights PEC, where she leads research work on business and modern slavery.
Lunchtime seminar
Watch the recording of the lunchtime seminar on the effectiveness of the forced labour import bans
