A group of eight civil society organisations developed model guidance on Conducting Human Rights Due Diligence in relation to State-Imposed Forced Labour (December 2025). It offers insights to the EU Commission as it prepares guidance for the upcoming EU Forced Labour Regulation but can also serve as a resource for companies grappling with the topic. The guidance also includes case studies of business good practice in contexts of State-imposed forced labour.
Human Level’s Take:
- State-imposed forced labour—affecting an estimated 3.9 million people globally—poses particular challenges to human rights, as remediation through authorities or the courts becomes impossible.
- Companies may struggle to identify State-imposed forced labour because they are unable to use sources of information like stakeholder engagement, social audits, certifications or site visits. Significantly, companies often lack leverage to tackle abuses in these contexts and even collective leverage with peers can be ineffective to shift government policies or practices. As a result, without meaningful change on the part of State actors, companies will need to consider a responsible exit that ends its connection with the impact while also ensuring that its departure does not increase human rights risks to local workers, communities and employees.
- So how can companies meaningfully conduct human rights due diligence in these contexts? The guidance outlines a number of ways in which typical HRDD will need to be adapted to the unique factors of State-imposed forced labour, including how instances are identified, which stakeholders are engaged, and how remediation can happen.
- The guidance also emphasises the critical importance of setting the foundations to prevent being involved with State-imposed forced labour through a company’s own operations, subsidiaries, joint ventures, and direct and indirect suppliers. This includes setting strong policies for own operations (including subsidiaries and JVs) and for suppliers, as well as providing technical and financial support for suppliers to identify risks of forced labour in their own supply chains.
- It also entails putting in place strong governance structures, including board- and executive-level oversight and accountability to ensure policies are implemented in practice and integrated into business risk management processes.
Some key takeaways:
- What is State-imposed forced labour?: Many countries, including the U.S., Canada and Mexico, now ban or are introducing laws to prohibit imports made with forced labour. The EU’s Forced Labour Regulation, which came into force in September 2025, bans the sale, import and export of goods produced using forced labour, both private and State-imposed. The EU Commission is now developing guidance for companies on conducting human rights due diligence (HRDD) in the context of forced labour imposed by governments. State-imposed forced labour can refer to forced labour imposed by government authorities, organisations acting on behalf of governments, or organisations with authority similar to the state. State-imposed labour is especially challenging to address, because victims effectively lack access to remedy that would otherwise be enforced by authorities and the courts — as the guidance points out, there is effectively no individual escape from the system. In 2022, the ILO estimated that approximately 3.9 million people were in State-imposed forced labour, with examples ranging from cotton production in Turkmenistan, systematic Uyghur forced labour in China, abuse of compulsory prison labour in places like Brazil, Poland, Russia and the U.S., and abuse of military conscriptions in countries like Egypt, Eritrea, Mali and Mongolia. There are some exceptions where labour imposed by the government is not considered forced labour, but safeguards need to be in place to prevent exploitation and lack of consent.
- Adapting HRDD in situations of State-imposed forced labour: Some typical components of HRDD need to be adapted in situations of State-imposed forced labour, as they may be impossible to meaningfully carry out in these contexts. For example, companies likely have little or no leverage in these situations and even collective leverage with other companies may do little to influence State policy and practice. In addition, meaningful stakeholder engagement with potentially affected people is nearly impossible to carry out in situations of State-imposed forced labour, as it can be both difficult and unsafe to engage with workers, unions and suppliers. Similarly, practices like social audits, certifications or site visits will not be effective to identify forced labour, as impacts are likely to be hidden. As a result, responsibly exiting the situation may be the only course of action a company can take to de-link its business or supply chain from the harm. This puts the focus of HRDD on governance and on identifying exposure or links to State-imposed forced labour.
- Practical recommendations for HRDD in situations of State-imposed forced labour: The guidance outlines ways for companies to carry out HRDD to identify risks of exposure to forced labour. First, companies will need to embed expectations on forced labour and other human rights risks in policies, including components like prohibiting operation or having a presence (through subsidiaries or joint ventures) in places or sectors where State-imposed forced labour is known or is likely. Supplier policies and contracts should also include prohibitions on State-imposed forced labour, coupled with support for suppliers to ensure compliance in their own operations and with their own suppliers; this could include training, technical and financial support, or development of risk assessment tools. In addition, governance structures like the Board and executives are expected to oversee and be held accountable for developing a strategy and policies related to State-imposed forced labour and its meaningful integration into company risk-management processes. Companies can also adapt their risk and impact identification, mapping where forced labour could be a risk in their operations, supply chains and with business partners, and conducting comprehensive in-depth assessments to identify risks. The guidance advises that such mapping should be conducted to the raw material level, as raw materials like cotton, agriculture, quartz and polysilicon (used in solar panels), and steel, titanium and lithium (used across industries) have been linked to State-imposed forced labour. Where it is difficult to get direct, reliable information on risks, companies can consider other sources of credible information like customs records, public datasets, corporate websites, annual reports, sustainability and financial reports, research and investigations, and traceability technology. They can also consider engaging with organisations whose leadership or membership is composed of representatives of impacted people, as well as experts on state-imposed forced labour. When companies identify risks or actual instances of State-imposed forced labour, they are expected to cease activities causing or contributing to adverse impacts. Companies will also need to track the implementation of HRDD and publicly communicate on the steps they are taking. Finally, when it comes to remediation, it may be impossible to provide remedy to individuals affected by State-imposed forced labour, so companies can consider alternative forms of remediation like support for communities in exile and non-financial remedies like guarantees of non-repetition. Companies can engage directly with affected communities to determine effective measures.
