Preparing for the EU Forced Labour Regulation: From Policy to Proof in Mineral Supply Chains

At the end of June 2026, the European Commission published its long-awaited Guidelines on the EU Forced Labour Regulation (FLR), alongside the Forced Labour Single Portal and a public database of documented forced labour risks. Together, these give companies a much clearer view of how the Regulation is expected to work when enforcement begins on 14 December 2027. 

The Guidelines do not change the law and are not legally binding in the same way as the Regulation itself. They do, however, set out how authorities are expected to assess risk, choose cases for investigation, evaluate company evidence, and enforce product bans. 

For companies that buy, trade, process, or use minerals and metals, the practical shift is from policy to proof. A supplier code or forced labour policy may form part of the evidence, but companies also need to know enough about a product and its upstream supply chain to respond when authorities ask where it came from, how it was produced, and what was done when risks were identified. 

From due diligence process to product-level proof 

The FLR does not prescribe a standalone due diligence process. It imposes an obligation of result. Products made wholly or partly with forced labour cannot be placed or made available on the EU market, or exported from it. Due diligence remains one way to prevent and evidence risk, but a well-written policy does not make a product compliant if forced labour was used in its extraction, processing, or manufacture. 

The Guidelines show the breadth of evidence that may become relevant. Authorities can look at supply-chain maps, raw material traceability and chain-of-custody records, facility locations, ownership links, purchase and shipping records, production volumes, worker testimony, grievance information, audits, and corrective actions. They may also use laboratory results, including isotopic testing. In a mineral supply chain, this type of testing can help assess whether the physical characteristics of a material are consistent with its claimed origin. But it is one piece of evidence, not a substitute for traceability. 

This is particularly important where material is blended, transformed, or traded through several intermediaries. The Regulation has no minimum threshold for the share of a product made with forced labour. The Guidelines also warn that a complete lack of traceability can weigh negatively where a raw material or component may have been mixed with high-risk material. 

Legacy inventory will also need attention. The FLR applies to products placed or made available on the EU market from 14 December 2027 even if they, or their components, were produced or imported earlier. For minerals and metals, where stock can sit in warehouses, move through long contracts, or be blended over time, companies need enough visibility over older material to assess it before the application date. 

State-imposed forced labour changes the risk model 

The Commission’s prioritisation criteria are more specific than a general assessment of ‘high risk’. Authorities must consider three factors together: the scale and severity of the suspected forced labour, the quantity or volume of affected products on the EU market, and the physical, functional, or economic significance of the suspected part or component in the final product. The Guidelines say state-imposed forced labour is likely to rank highly in terms of scale and severity because it often affects large numbers of people and is structural or systemic. 

It is also important to note that the FLR is geographically agnostic. It applies to products regardless of origin, type, or sector, and whether the forced labour occurs inside or outside the EU. This differs from the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which creates a rebuttable presumption linked to a particular geography. Under the EU system, authorities still have to establish that forced labour was used and link the product under investigation to that practice or area. 

However, geographic neutrality does not make systemic evidence irrelevant. The Commission may use information from international organisations, public institutions, academic or research bodies, workers and trade unions, civil society, satellite and geolocation analysis, trade data, and other credible sources. Where evidence points to systemic or widespread forced labour, an investigation can also expand beyond one product to other products from the same suppliers or geographic area. Evidence from an established state-imposed forced labour case may therefore be highly relevant to later cases from the same region. 

The same context changes how companies should treat social audits. Where auditors cannot enter facilities freely, or workers cannot speak without supervision or fear of retaliation, a clean audit may carry little weight. The Commission recommends independent research, worker and civil society information, expert analysis, and other evidence where conventional on-site verification is compromised. 

Privately imposed forced labour requires a different response. Abuses by employers, labour recruiters, traders, creditors, or criminal groups can sometimes be addressed through better purchasing practices, engagement with workers, supplier leverage, corrective action, and remediation. Regardless, abrupt disengagement, particularly in some informal or artisanal and small-scale mining settings, can exacerbate conditions by removing livelihoods and deepening vulnerability. However, if a supplier will not cooperate, workers cannot be reached safely, or the abuse cannot be brought to an end, disengagement may still be necessary. In state-imposed cases, the lack of meaningful company leverage may mean that outcome occurs much sooner. 

Enforcement risk travels with the product 

A ban decision is product-based and has general application. It can therefore affect other companies placing or making the same product available on the EU market, not only the operator first investigated. The dedicated ICSMS forced labour module will support information sharing between the Commission, national authorities, and customs. For businesses, the immediate exposure can include held shipments, blocked sales, withdrawal or disposal costs, delayed deliveries, contractual disputes, loss of supply, and reputational damage. 

 Another consideration is that the response window is also relatively short for a complex mineral supply chain. During a formal investigation, companies may have 30 to 60 working days to provide requested information, while investigations should in principle conclude within nine months. If origin, facility, worker, and transaction records have to be reconstructed only after an investigation starts, the commercial decision may even arrive before the evidence does. 

While critical raw materials are not exempt, there is a narrow mechanism for products in supply chains of strategic or critical importance to the EU. Instead of immediate disposal, an authority may require the company, at its own expense, to withhold the product for a defined period while the identified forced labour is eliminated. The product cannot be sold or exported during that period. To secure release, the company would need to show that the circumstances identified in the decision are no longer present and provide evidence of the measures taken, including steps to prevent recurrence. If it cannot do so within the period set by the authority, the product must be disposed of. Strategic importance can therefore change the remedy, but not the prohibition itself. 

The EU forced labour risk database should be understood in the same way, as a screening tool, not a blacklist or a declaration that unlisted products are safe. Essentially, it contains indicative, non-exhaustive information on products and geographic areas where widespread and severe risks have been documented in credible public sources. But companies still need to test what those risks mean for their own products and suppliers. 

What minerals and metals companies should do now: 

1. Map the product, not only the supplier: Connect material to the relevant mine or extraction area, processor, smelter, refiner, manufacturer, trader, and logistics route. Identify ownership links and the points where material is blended or transformed. 

1. Test the evidence file: Choose a product or material now and see whether the business can assemble origin, chain-of-custody, supplier, worker or stakeholder, risk assessment, and corrective action evidence within a 30 to 60 working day window. This exercise will indicate where visibility actually breaks down. 

1. Challenge weak assurance: Do not rely on an audit or certification where the conditions for independent verification are absent. Test audit findings against worker grievance data, credible external research, geolocation or satellite evidence, trade flows, and production capacity where these are relevant to the risk. 

1. Prepare the commercial response: Legal, procurement, sustainability, trade compliance, customs, operations, sales, and communications should know how to identify affected stock, pause transactions, preserve evidence, respond to authorities and customers, and assess alternative supply. Legacy inventory and contracts extending beyond December 2027 require particular attention. 

Looking Forward 

Our first article in this series argued that the FLR turns forced labour into a market access risk. The Guidelines make the operational requirement more clear: companies need to be able to connect products to origin, production conditions, and the decisions taken when risk is identified. For mineral supply chains, that is a data and management challenge as much as a legal one. 

The period before December 2027 now needs to be used to find the weak points in supply chains. Key weak point indicators include products that cannot be traced far enough upstream, supplier assurances that cannot be independently tested, legacy stock with poor provenance, or internal teams that cannot assemble the same evidence quickly. Fixing those gaps will do more for readiness than adding another policy to the shelf. 

TDi Sustainability supports mineral and metals companies with supply chain mapping, forced labour risk assessment, supplier due diligence, stakeholder-informed analysis, remediation planning, and investigation readiness. TDi’s digital platform can bring supplier risk, audit findings, corrective actions, and supporting evidence into one place, giving companies a clearer view of where risk sits and what still needs attention. 

Get in touch with TDi Sustainability to discuss how we can support your business ahead of the Regulation’s application in December 2027.