Coffee. Gloves. Smartphones. Solar panels. Seafood. So much of what we consume comes from sprawling global supply chains tainted by forced labour. This abhorrent practice endures because it pays. Companies and governments pocket nearly $236bn in profits each year from forced labour.
Why is forced labour so profitable? Because so little has been done to stop it. Prosecutions are rare, corporate accountability is elusive, and justice for workers remains the exception, not the rule.
In recent years, advocates have found a weapon capable of hitting companies where it hurts: the market. Import bans shut the door on goods made with forced labour. No access, no profit. And that is exactly why this trade tool is gaining global traction. It is one of the only tools in the corporate accountability arsenal with real teeth. Import bans are not a silver bullet, by any means. But they can punish exploiters, provide remedies to workers, and force real change. Import bans cannot be lightly dismissed.
But a recent article, ‘Do forced labour bans protect workers in supply chains?’, does precisely that. Judy Fudge, an internationally-renowned expert on forced labour, condemns import bans, finding fault in their provenance and ignoring evidence of their effectiveness. Fudge’s critique does little to acknowledge the concrete impact of import bans: significant changes in corporate behaviour, as well as tens of millions of dollars in back wages and recruitment fees returned to workers across the globe. The article also fails to credit the years of rigorous, evidence-based investigations by labour rights advocates that made these victories possible.
Labour rights groups use import bans as one tool among many. No other mechanism has catapulted forced labour to a serious compliance risk for companies. One need only look at the sheer volume of law firm client alerts on forced labour in recent years to understand the shifting compliance tides. Companies are paying attention because the stakes have changed. They now face risk. Import bans have raised the spectre of enforcement.
Human rights and labour rights groups have used import bans to shift corporate behaviour and deliver results for workers. In the fight against forced labour, import bans are a tool we can’t afford to abandon.
Closing markets to end impunity
Advocates across the globe use multiple strategies to address forced labour, with each playing a distinct but complementary role. These tools include mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence, strategic litigation, reporting for criminal prosecution, and National Referral Mechanisms (NRMs). Import bans are an essential part of this ecosystem. When implemented properly, they function as a law-enforcement action directly targeting forced labour perpetrators, compelling employers to improve conditions for workers on the ground.
No other corporate accountability tool creates the kind of compliance risk that an import ban does
In the US, labour rights advocates fought for years to close a loophole that made import ban enforcement under the US Tariff Act of 1930 all but impossible. They succeeded in 2015. Since then, civil society organisations have partnered with workers and unions, submitting petitions to block goods from entering the US market. Workers’ rights organisations have petitioned the US government directly to ban frankincense, salt, squid, and gloves tainted with forced labour from the US market.
Workers and their advocates have turned to this strategy for good reason. There is simply no other corporate accountability tool that creates the kind of compliance risk that an import ban does. Market-based restrictions on importation of goods made with forced labour can trigger immediate financial, legal, and reputational costs for companies that fail to address forced labour in their supply chains.
In recent years, the US has issued more than 35 import ban orders (known as Withhold Release Orders [WROs] in the US context) under the Tariff Act (as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act in 2015). In April this year, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued an import ban against salt produced with forced labour from a salt farm in Sinan, South Korea. The petition seeking this ban was filed by Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL), a South Korean, non-profit legal group.
The forced labour situation in Sinan salt farms was first reported nearly a decade ago. Workers, many with intellectual disabilities, filed a civil case in South Korea. The workers won that case, but little changed. A prominent South Korean lawyer who represented the workers in the civil case underscored the import ban’s importance: “Our hope is that the … ban would force companies to strengthen due diligence over supply chains and lead to the elimination of human rights violations.”
After CBP issued the ban on Taepyung salt, a coalition of Korean human rights organisations and unions, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, released a statement urging the US government not to modify or revoke the ban without adequate redress for the victims in this case and the complete eradication of forced labour in the salt farms. Jong Chul Kim, APIL founder and a former recipient of the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Hero award, wrote to colleagues:
One of the reasons why forced labour in salt farms has not been eradicated for such a long time is the lack of accountability for Korean salt companies that procure salt from such farms. That is why we filed a petition for an import ban – to hold companies responsible. Although the government initially pushed back after the [import ban] was issued, it has now begun to pay closer attention not only to salt farms but also to other sectors, especially the fishing industry, where similar forced labour practices occur.
Import bans have delivered unprecedented remedies for workers. Thanks to enforcement under Section 307 of the US Tariff Act, workers received more than $62m in stolen back wages and recruitment fees. The full recovery may actually exceed $100m. Blocked from accessing the lucrative US market, companies have been forced to act, repaying back wages, improving labour and living conditions. As more countries adopt similar bans, the pressure will only grow. And so will the wins for workers.
Punishment obviously isn’t the end goal. Advocates also push for companies to engage with suppliers, address internal compliance lapses, reform irresponsible purchasing practices that pressure suppliers to slash costs, and negotiate with workers to eradicate abuse. Once an import ban is in place, petitioners frequently provide additional evidence to Customs and Border Protection to weigh in on a potential modification or revocation. Remedial steps can restore access to the US market, but workers and petitioners can object.
Advocates have also used the import ban system to push for more systemic remedies in the private sector, demanding freedom of association and worker-driven mechanisms to monitor improvements. Economic consequences matter. Risk matters. Import bans can drive reform.
Mitigating risks
The subtitle of Fudge’s article alleges that import bans are “designed to starve rights-violating firms into closure.” That is false. Import bans have not led to mass factory closures and job losses. And that is not their intent. In one instance, where an import ban seemed likely to force a factory to shutter, investors stepped in and channelled millions in emergency funds to cover wage payments to workers.
Human rights and workers’ rights groups championing the import ban strategy have advocated engagement, not “starvation”. These groups have also invested significant resources to develop strategies to prevent potential unintended consequences to workers. These groups are keenly conscious of the risks involved in a Section 307 Tariff Act action (as with any corporate accountability tool) and have shown great care when reaching for this tool.
In the face of state-imposed forced labour, there can be no “due diligence”
In some instances, advocates have elected not to petition for an import ban after assessing that the risks to workers outweighed any potential benefit. The human rights and worker rights organisations filing import ban petitions are not naive, as Fudge’s article might suggest. To the contrary, advocates take great care in assessing the potential for unintended consequences. Many of the recent 307 Tariff Act petitions have been filed in close collaboration with local partners to minimise adverse impacts.
Section 307 of the Tariff Act isn’t perfect – but it’s powerful. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Human rights groups see import bans, especially when paired with strong due diligence laws, as game-changers. Import bans push companies to address forced labour in their supply chains in ways that voluntary, corporate social responsibility measures never have. That is to be applauded, not condemned.
Addressing state-imposed forced labour
The examples above focus on private-sector forced labour. State-imposed forced labour is a different animal, one that demands a distinct approach.
In 2021, the US Congress took bold action against state-imposed forced labour with the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA). The law established a rebuttable presumption that all goods from Xinjiang or exported by companies included on a US government-maintained Entity List are made with forced labour and therefore impermissible in the United States.
Engagement cannot end state-imposed forced labour. As the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region recently stated:
Operating in the Uyghur Region in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is a practical impossibility. There are no valid means for companies to verify that any workplace in the Uyghur Region is free of forced labour or to prevent the use of forced labour in these workplaces in line with human rights due diligence.
Since the law went into effect, CBP has flagged more than 16,780 shipments, worth $3.6bn, for forced labour inspection. More than 140 companies have been added to the UFLPA Entity List. For Uyghur communities, this isn’t just abstract policy. It’s personal. As Uyghur leader and activist Elfidar Iltebir put it recently in a coalition meeting with federal officials: “Each company added to the UFLPA Entity List and each shipment blocked at port gives us hope that there’s a price to pay for profiting from forced labour and human suffering.” And that is precisely why import bans are powerful. These bans exact a steep price from those who seek to profit from forced labour.
In the face of state-imposed forced labour, there can be no “due diligence”. Factories and production facilities in the Uyghur region operate in an environment undergirded by surveillance. Government retaliation threatens all workers, as well as those seeking to conduct monitoring. Companies that have attempted to conduct due diligence in this context have encountered state oppression, including the arrest and imprisonment of those attempting to “audit.” In 2023, the Chinese government arrested five Beijing-based employees of a US due diligence consulting firm, releasing them only after two years of detention.
Coordinated action required
An import ban in just one country is not enough. Goods barred from the US market can be re-shipped to other markets around the globe. If we are to end impunity – and make forced labour unprofitable – we need more countries to ban these tainted goods from entering their markets.
There is encouraging news. Across the globe, efforts to adopt import bans similar to that of the US are gaining momentum. Under the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA), Canada and Mexico are also obligated to enact import bans barring goods made with forced labour. Mexico recently announced its own forced labour import ban proposal, and Canada is facing mounting pressure to enforce existing laws robustly. Canadian civil society advocates have fought to block companies from using Canada as a dumping ground for goods rejected at US ports.
In a significant step forward, the EU in 2024 adopted forced labour product restrictions for the bloc, covering goods made with forced labour within the bloc and abroad. This move came after persistent advocacy from civil society, which called for a more worker-centred approach that addressed shortcomings in the US approach by incorporating worker consultation and access to remedy.
While the final regulation did not include these safeguards, EU human rights groups have embraced the EU Forced Labour Regulation (FLR). EU groups recognise the impact that the legislation can still have in protecting workers and ending corporate impunity. Currently, the EU Commission is seeking a wide array of input from civil society and workers’ rights groups on FLR implementation, set to commence in 2027.
In the United Kingdom, the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament just issued a report recommending the adoption of import bans, including bans to bar goods tainted with state-sponsored forced labour from entering the UK market.
Across the Pacific, groups in Australia have pressed the government to build on the independent review of its Modern Slavery Act and prioritise the adoption of a forced labour ban. NGOs in Japan and South Korea are advocating for similar import restrictions in their countries. The newest US trade agreement with Indonesia includes a commitment from the Indonesian government to adopt and implement an import ban.
In 2022, 16 leading non-governmental organisations across seven countries and the EU joined forces to launch the Coalition Against Forced Labour in Trade. These groups advocate for the introduction and enforcement of forced labour import bans in all major importing economies. This coalition is just one of many seeking to leverage import bans to tackle forced labour, including the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region, the Cotton Campaign, and the IUU Fishing and Labour Rights Coalition.
The message is clear: There should be no safe harbour for forced labour. Companies cannot continue to conduct business as usual. Governments cannot remain complacent. And workers and advocates should continue to work together to deploy import bans as a powerful lever to compel change.
