Regulations Library

UFLPA is a U.S. import-enforcement law that can block products connected to forced labor in Xinjiang (and certain listed entities). If your company imports into the U.S., you may need deep supply chain traceability and documentation to avoid detentions.

Section 307 is the core U.S. legal ban on importing goods made with forced labor. Any company importing into the U.S. can be affected if its supply chain involves forced labor risks, even deep in lower tiers.

The SEC conflict minerals rule requires certain U.S. reporting companies to investigate and disclose use and sourcing of 3TG conflict minerals. It pushes companies to build OECD-style due diligence and supplier data collection for minerals in products.

The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import illegally harvested plant products into the U.S. Many wood and paper supply chains need legality documentation and declarations to avoid seizures and enforcement actions.

California’s supply chain transparency law requires large manufacturers and retailers doing business in California to disclose what they are doing to address slavery and human trafficking risk in their supply chains. It is primarily a public disclosure requirement rather than a prescriptive due diligence mandate.

Canada’s Supply Chains Act requires certain organizations to publish an annual report describing steps taken to prevent and reduce forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. It is designed to increase transparency and drive stronger supply chain controls.

Canada prohibits importing goods made with forced labour. Companies importing into Canada should be able to show that their supply chains do not rely on forced labour, especially in high-risk sectors and geographies.

The EU CSDDD will require the largest EU companies (and certain large non-EU companies active in the EU) to identify, prevent, mitigate, and remediate adverse human rights and environmental impacts across their chains of activities. Omnibus I significantly narrowed scope, raised thresholds, and limited due diligence depth to Tier 1 suppliers by default.

CSRD standardizes sustainability reporting for large EU companies using European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Omnibus I drastically narrowed scope and reduced mandatory datapoints by ~70%. Even if not directly in scope, companies may face cascading data requests from customers that are — though Omnibus I introduced 'protected undertaking' status for smaller companies.

The EU Forced Labour Regulation will ban products made with forced labour from being placed on or exported from the EU market. Companies selling into the EU will need credible forced-labour risk controls and evidence, particularly for high-risk regions and sectors.

EUDR requires companies that place certain forest-risk commodities and products on the EU market to prove they are deforestation-free and legal, supported by geolocation and due diligence statements. It drives deep upstream traceability for commodities like cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, cattle, rubber, and timber.

The EU Conflict Minerals Regulation requires EU importers of 3TG minerals/metals above certain thresholds to run OECD-aligned supply chain due diligence. It is aimed at preventing mineral trade from financing conflict and human rights abuses.

The EU Batteries Regulation introduces sustainability, safety, labeling, carbon footprint, and (for certain operators) supply chain due diligence requirements for batteries placed on the EU market. Companies in battery value chains need upstream material traceability and responsible sourcing controls.

CBAM requires EU importers of certain carbon-intensive goods to report embedded emissions and, from 2026, transition into a compliance regime tied to carbon pricing. It forces importers to collect verified emissions data from suppliers and to manage carbon cost exposure at the border.

The EU PPWR sets EU-wide rules to reduce packaging waste and improve packaging sustainability. Companies selling packaged goods into the EU will need packaging compliance controls across design, materials, labeling, and recyclability requirements.

EUTR bans placing illegally harvested timber on the EU market and requires a due diligence system for first placers. Timber and paper supply chains need legality risk assessment, documentation, and traceability controls.

Germany’s LkSG requires in-scope companies to run a human rights and certain environmental due diligence system across their supply chains. Companies must conduct risk analysis, take preventive and remedial actions, set up a complaints process, and document/report their approach.

France’s Duty of Vigilance Law requires large companies to publish and implement a vigilance plan to identify and prevent severe human rights, health/safety, and environmental harms linked to their own operations and their value chain. It is one of the earliest and most influential European HRDD laws.

Norway’s Transparency Act requires covered companies to conduct human rights due diligence and to respond to information requests about how they address impacts in their supply chains. It combines a due diligence duty with a public transparency and stakeholder inquiry mechanism.

Switzerland requires certain companies to conduct due diligence and publish reporting related to conflict minerals and child labour risks. Companies in scope need supply chain policies, traceability systems, risk assessment, and public transparency.

The UK Modern Slavery Act requires large companies operating in the UK to publish an annual statement describing actions taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. It is a transparency regime that drives supplier risk mapping and public accountability.

The UK forest-risk commodities regime aims to prevent UK supply chains from using commodities produced on land used illegally under local laws. Companies in scope will need due diligence systems and reporting to demonstrate legal sourcing for specified commodities.

Australia’s Modern Slavery Act requires large companies operating in Australia to report annually on modern slavery risks and actions across their operations and supply chains. It is a transparency regime that pushes companies to build stronger supplier risk screening and remediation practices.

Australia’s illegal logging regime requires importers of regulated timber products to run due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally logged timber entering Australian supply chains. It drives legality documentation and risk assessment for timber sourcing.

The Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Act is designed to require companies supplying goods or services to Dutch end-users to investigate and address child labour risk in their supply chains. As of this verification date, it has not entered into force, so companies should monitor developments closely.

Belgium has considered a value-chain duty of vigilance and responsibility statute requiring companies to prevent and address human rights and environmental harms in their value chains. This entry is included as a forward-looking proposal for early preparation.

India’s BRSR requires large listed companies to disclose standardized ESG information as part of annual reporting. It covers environmental and social governance topics and can require value-chain related disclosures and data collection from suppliers.

Brazil’s ‘Dirty List’ publicly identifies employers found to have used labor analogous to slavery. Being listed can cut off access to certain credit and can lead to customer, investor, and supply chain termination actions, creating strong incentives for compliance and remediation.

New Zealand is moving toward a modern slavery reporting regime that would require large organizations to disclose how they identify and address modern slavery risks in operations and supply chains. Companies selling into New Zealand should prepare for public reporting and stronger supplier risk management expectations.

Japan’s HRDD guidelines encourage companies to build human rights due diligence into their supply chain management, aligned to international expectations. While voluntary, they are increasingly used as a benchmark by buyers, investors, and global regulators.

The NY Fashion Act is intended to impose stronger environmental and human rights accountability on large fashion brands by requiring supply chain mapping, due diligence, and disclosure. It is included here as a forward-looking proposal for early preparation by the sector.

South Korea is a watchlist jurisdiction where mandatory HRDD legislation has been proposed or discussed. Companies with Korea-based operations should monitor developments due to likely alignment with EU-style due diligence trends.

Taiwan is a watchlist jurisdiction where HRDD requirements have been reported as under development, potentially targeting listed manufacturers. Companies should track official regulator updates and prepare for value-chain due diligence and disclosure expectations.

California AB 1817 restricts intentionally added PFAS in textile articles and apparel sold in California through phased fluorine limits.

Colorado HB22-1345 phases in PFAS prohibitions across multiple product categories, including textiles and furnishings.

Indiana HB 1341 imposes PFAS-related controls for firefighting gear, including restrictions and compliance disclosures.

New Mexico HB 212 establishes phased PFAS restrictions for textiles and other covered products sold in the state.

New Hampshire HB 1649 phases in restrictions on intentionally added PFAS in a range of consumer product categories.

New York prohibits sale of apparel with intentionally added PFAS, with phased treatment for severe wet-condition outdoor apparel.

Maine’s PFAS framework imposes broad reporting and phased restrictions on intentionally added PFAS in products sold in the state.

Minnesota’s PFAS law creates category-specific near-term bans and a longer-term broad prohibition framework.

Oregon SB 582 establishes an EPR system requiring producers of covered packaging materials to fund and support recycling modernization.

Rhode Island’s comprehensive PFAS law sets phased prohibitions and compliance obligations for products sold in the state.

Rhode Island restricts intentionally added PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment with a future effective date.

Vermont S.25 introduces PFAS reporting obligations for apparel, footwear, and travel goods supplied into the state.

Vermont H.238 phases out intentionally added PFAS in specified textile and PPE categories.

The ESPR creates a framework for durability, reparability, recyclability, and information requirements for products sold in the EU.

Washington’s Safer Products rules impose category-specific PFAS restrictions and related reporting obligations for products sold in the state.

This EU directive tightens consumer-law rules around green claims, durability communications, and misleading environmental marketing.

SB 253 requires large companies doing business in California to publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions, including Scope 3, under CARB rules.

SB 261 requires large companies doing business in California to publish climate-related financial risk reports and risk mitigation measures.

This update captures recent Lacey declaration phase expansions affecting wood and plant-product imports into the U.S.

EO 14030 previously directed U.S. agencies to address climate-related financial risk; it was later rescinded.

The SEC’s 2024 climate disclosure rule is finalized but stayed; registrants should monitor litigation outcomes and SEC updates before treating requirements as active.

California SB 54 creates an EPR framework requiring producers to fund and implement packaging waste reduction, recycling, and recyclability outcomes.

California SB 707 creates an EPR framework for apparel/textiles, requiring producer participation in collection, reuse, and recovery systems.

AB 652 bans intentionally added PFAS in juvenile products sold in California.

AB 1305 imposes public-disclosure requirements tied to net-zero/carbon-neutral claims and voluntary carbon offset usage.

Bill C-59 strengthened Canadian greenwashing enforcement by requiring adequate and proper substantiation for environmental claims.

Canada’s Federal Plastics Registry requires covered entities to report plastics-related data under CEPA authorities.

Canada issued CEPA PFAS reporting notices requiring covered entities to provide data on PFAS use and supply-chain presence.

Washington E2SSB 5284 establishes producer responsibility obligations for packaging and paper products with multi-year implementation.

Colorado HB22-1355 creates an EPR framework requiring producers to fund and manage recycling system improvements.

Colorado SB24-081 expands PFAS controls with phased prohibitions and disclosure requirements for covered products.

Connecticut SB 292 sets phased PFAS restrictions and related requirements for multiple product categories sold in-state.

France Decree 2022-748 supports AGEC implementation, including product information and circular-economy obligations relevant to textiles and related goods.

France’s Climate and Resilience framework underpins environmental communication requirements, including textile environmental scoring initiatives.

Maine’s packaging EPR law requires producers to finance municipal recycling costs through a regulated stewardship framework.

Maine HP1428/LD2227 updates restrictions and implementation provisions for toxic substances in packaging.

Maine LD1537 established broad PFAS reporting and long-term phaseout architecture across product categories.

EPA’s TSCA 8(a)(7) rule requires retrospective PFAS manufacturing/import reporting and recordkeeping for covered entities.

France has advanced a PFAS phaseout agenda through proposed legislation and policy measures. Companies should treat this as high-priority emerging regulation and prepare substitution and disclosure plans.

GPSR modernizes EU consumer product safety obligations, including traceability, incident reporting, and e-commerce responsibilities.

Mexico’s 2023 forced-labor framework introduced customs-related controls to prevent importation of goods linked to forced labor.

SB 62 strengthens labor protections in California garment supply chains, including wage and liability provisions.