It has been three years since the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labor
Prevention
Act
(UFLPA) came into force. The groundbreaking law — mandating that all
products from China’s Xinjiang region be barred from entering the US,
due to the inability to assess whether goods were produced with forced labor —
set a new bar for human rights due diligence legislation.
Despite some companies’ attempts to water it
down,
the UFLPA has been effective and shown the potential of mandatory due diligence:
More than $1.3
billion
worth of goods linked to Xinjiang was barred from entering the US in just its
first year of enforcement. But it’s also shown the limitations of a
single-country approach — which is why Elfidar
Iltebir, a
Uyghur-American and President of the Uyghur American
Association, said she hopes that other markets,
including Canada and Europe, embrace similar mandatory human rights due
diligence requirements.
“The United States has demonstrated that a law like the UFLPA can be effectively
implemented, and that companies can comply with its legal requirements,” Iltebir
told Sustainable Brands® (SB). “We urgently need more countries to take
a stand against Uyghur forced labor and adopt legislation similar to the UFLPA.”
The impetus for the UFLPA
Around 2018, reports began emerging of China’s digitally enhanced police
state
— which soon morphed into the largest system of concentration
camps
since World War II, housing as many as three million Uyghurs and other mostly
Turkic Muslim minorities. Alongside this is ongoing cultural
genocide
in Xinjiang; Mosques, cemeteries, shrines and historic Uyghur
neighborhoods
have been systematically destroyed.
In late 2019, evidence began to emerge that these camps were also being used as
factory labor forces. In March of 2021, a report published by the Australia
Strategic Policy Institute linked numerous apparel brands — including
adidas, Fila and Nike — to indirectly sourcing from suppliers in the
Uyghur regions. Since then, numerous reports have shown the global reach of
Xinjiang’s products.
“In addition to the apparel sector, more reports have emerged revealing
connections to Uyghur forced labor in other industries such as seafood,
tomatoes, the automotive sector, solar
panels
and critical minerals,” Iltebir says.
While the US has an existing regulation prohibiting products from being imported
with forced labor (Section 307
of the Tariff Act, which prohibits imports of any good or service in which a
“worker does not offer himself voluntarily”), it was limited because it required
proof of forced labor to block an import — something increasingly impossible
in Xinjiang.
The UFLPA assumes that, due to lack of access to the region and the role of the
Chinese government in perpetuating forced labor, all goods from Xinjiang are
presumed to be linked to forced labor. This vastly expands the scope of products
barred from entry and puts pressure on the Chinese government to end its
campaign of repression against Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples.
“The message is clear: Forced labor is a ‘top tier’ compliance issue, and no
longer the provenance of weak Codes of Conduct or Corporate Social
Responsibility measures,” Anasuya
Syam, director of Human Rights and
trade at the Human Trafficking Legal Center,
said
in a statement. “What changed? The advent of substantial legal and enforcement
risk.”
Beyond Xinjiang
The UFLPA’s impact also demonstrates a worrying reality: A system in which
brands made voluntary commitments to eliminate forced
labor
or maintain human rights standards often failed to improve working conditions
along complex supply chains — partly because the only oversight often comes from
civil society groups or the media through shaming, and that is not enough.
Unfortunately, the response from the Chinese government has not been to stop its
forced labor system or improve human rights in the Uyghur regions. Instead, it’s
sought to obfuscate
exports
by routing them from Xinjiang through other parts of China or to other parts of
the world. In 2023, the vast majority of goods blocked by the UFLPA weren’t
coming from China, but from countries including
Malaysia.
Iltebir also described other tactics, including “producing fake pay stubs that
Uyghur workers can present to auditors” and labor-transfer programs that move
millions of
Uyghurs
from Xinjiang to work in factories around China.
Global adoption and expansion
When the UFLPA passed, advocates hoped that other markets would soon follow and
work together to prevent the Chinese government from utilizing forced labor. But
while there has been progress — such as the EU’s Human Rights Due Diligence
(HRDD)
legislation
— so far, no similar laws have emerged around the world.
“Although there have been some positive steps by other countries, no strong
legislation has been passed yet. Even the European Union’s bill includes a
three-year implementation period,” Iltebir told SB. “There is potential, but
progress is not moving fast enough.”
There are challenges in the US, as well. The new administration has stopped
enforcing other laws — such as the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act — meant to hold US businesses accountable overseas and has broadly limited
US participation in global human
rights
enforcement. While this has not yet impacted the UFLPA, no new companies have
been added to the entity list since the new administration began in January.
Nevertheless, the UFLPA has shown the potential of governments enforcing human
rights standards in global supply chains. Now, it’s up to the rest of the world to step in with meaningful efforts to protect the human rights of Uyghurs
and other groups subject to forced labor around the world.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Media, Campaign and Research Consultant
Nithin is a freelance writer who focuses on global economic, and environmental issues with an aim at building channels of communication and collaboration around common challenges.
Published Aug 8, 2025 11am EDT / 8am PDT / 4pm BST / 5pm CEST