27 July 2026
- European Commission issues Guidelines on the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation: Towards effective enforcement?
- Origin circumvention on the rise? Thailand strengthens controls over a list of ‘surveillance goods’ exported to the US under non-preferential trade regimes
- Indonesia updates its regulatory framework for food packaging: Advancing food safety and sustainability?
- Recently adopted EU legislation
Note to Subscribers
Dear Friends and Readers of Trade Perspectives©,
Please note that Trade Perspectives© will take an editorial break during the WTO’s August recess and will resume its fortnightly publication schedule on 7 September 2026. We thank you for your continued interest in Trade Perspectives©and look forward to resuming our dialogues on international trade, food law, and EU and ASEAN developments with renewed energy and enthusiasm this Autumn.
FratiniVergano’s Trade Perspectives© Team
European Commission issues Guidelines on the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation: Towards effective enforcement?
By Florette Peter, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle
On 26 June 2026, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) published non-binding Guidelines regarding the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (hereinafter, Forced Labour Regulation). With the Forced Labour Regulation set to apply from 14 December 2027, the publication of the Guidelines marks an important step towards its implementation, notably by clarifying how the Commission expects economic operators and competent authorities to apply the new rules in practice.
This article provides an overview of the EU’s regulatory framework on forced labour, the Commission’s Guidelines, and assesses the underlying trade-related concerns and implications for businesses.
The EU’s regulatory framework on forced labour
On 12 December 2024, the EU had published the Forced Labour Regulation, which turns the EU’s human‑rights commitments and international labour standards regarding forced labour into enforceable obligations by “prohibiting economic operators from placing and making available on the Union market or exporting from the Union market products made with forced labour”. The Regulation will apply to all products and components, regardless of origin or sector, made with forced labour at any stage of their supply chain, “that are placed or made available on the EU market as from 14 December 2027, even if the products or their components were produced or imported into the EU before that date”. Products “offered online or through other means of distance sales”, when “targeted at end users in the EU”, also fall within the scope of the Regulation. While the Forced Labour Regulation’s approach is clear, many operational questions remain (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 6 of 25 March 2024).
In recent times, the Commission has progressively established the framework envisaged by the Forced Labour Regulation, including by adopting Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/903 of 24 April 2026 specifying the details and functionalities of the information and communication system to be used for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which establishes a dedicated module in the EU’s Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance (ICSMS) for purposes of facilitating cooperation between the Commission, EU Member States’ competent authorities and Customs authorities, as well as by launching the Forced Labour Single Portal, which serves as a central hub for related materials and tools and links to the Single Information Submission Point, allowing individuals and organisations to “share information about products or companies potentially linked to forced labour with a connection to the EU market” from 14 December 2027. The Commission is still developing the forced labour risk database, which would provide information on products and geographical areas where forced labour risks have been documented in credible, publicly available sources.
Key clarifications introduced by the Guidelines
The Commission’s 2026 Guidelines “build on and supersede” the 2021 Guidance on Due Diligence for EU Businesses to Address the Risk of Forced Labour in their Operations and Supply Chains, in order to promote consistent application of the Forced Labour Regulation across EU Member States. The Commission emphasises that the Guidelines do not introduce additional obligations, but rather seek to “help economic operators to be at a lower risk of having forced labour in their operations and supply chains”. The Guidelines provide detailed guidance on the scope of the Forced Labour Regulation, the application of its risk-based approach, due diligence expectations, evidentiary requirements, investigative procedures, and the mechanisms for cooperation and information-sharing between the Commission, EU Member States, and Customs authorities.
The Forced Labour Regulation does not define forced labour, but instead incorporates by reference the definition contained in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), under which forced labour consists of “work or services performed involuntarily and under coercion”. The Guidelines explain that coercion may take many forms, including violence, restrictions on movement, debt bondage, withholding of wages or identity documents, intimidation, and threats, such as threats of dismissal or deportation. The Guidelines further distinguish between privately imposed forced labour and State-imposed forced labour (SIFL), the latter involving coercion by State authorities or entities exercising State-like powers. The Guidelines emphasise that State-imposed forced labour is typically systemic, affects large numbers of workers and, because of its scale and severity, is likely to receive the highest enforcement priority under the risk-based approach.
The Forced Labour Regulation will require competent authorities to follow a risk-based approach when deciding which products and economic operators to prioritise for investigation. The Guidelines explain that the purpose of this approach is to ensure that enforcement resources be focused on cases presenting the highest risk and delivering the greatest potential impact. To identify products and prioritise cases for investigation, the competent authorities are to assess three criteria: 1) The scale and severity of the suspected forced labour, including whether State-imposed forced labour is involved; 2) The quantity or volume of products placed or made available on the EU market; and 3) The significance of the component within the final product that is suspected of having been made with forced labour. In determining which economic operators to investigate, authorities are also to consider the operator’s proximity to the alleged forced labour, the available leverage to prevent or remedy the situation, the operator’s size and economic resources, and the complexity of the relevant supply chain.
In addition to the risk-based approach to identify and take enforcement action against products associated with forced labour risks, the Forced Labour Regulation places strong emphasis on international cooperation, encouraging structured engagement with third countries through existing bilateral dialogues, trade agreements, and development cooperation. These mechanisms provide an opportunity for trading partners to demonstrate domestic efforts to combat forced labour and to reduce the likelihood that products or geographical areas would be identified by the EU as presenting heightened risks.
Cooperation obligations for companies under investigation
The Forced Labour Regulation will require EU Member States’ competent authorities to follow a step-by-step investigation process, starting with an initial assessment of whether a ‘substantiated concern’ exists, followed by a formal investigation that is normally to be completed within nine months, and which can lead to a decision imposing a market-wide prohibition applicable to all operators involved.
The Guidelines provide important practical details on the conduct of investigations and the evidence that authorities may request from economic operators at any stage of an investigation. These include details on their forced‑labour risk‑management actions, working conditions at the alleged site, and the products under assessment. More specifically, supply-chain traceability tools, trade and shipping documents, internal policies, social audit reports, and worker interviews are likely to be required.
Risk mitigation through due diligence
In terms of due diligence by economic operators, Article 1(3) of the Forced Labour Regulation expressly provides that “the Regulation does not create additional due diligence obligations for economic operators other than those already provided for in Union or national law”, which merely means that businesses will not face additional reporting obligations. The Forced Labour Regulation still recognises due diligence as “a useful tool to address forced labour in supply chains”and the Guidelines aim at clarifying how due diligence could “help companies comply with the Regulation” and reduce the risk that their products become subject to enforcement action.
In particular, the Guidelines recommend a risk-based and proportionate approach aligned with internationally recognised standards, notably the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) six-step due diligence guidance, integrated into existing corporate compliance systems. The Guidelines emphasise that due diligence should be an ongoing process encompassing risk identification, prevention, mitigation, monitoring and, where necessary, remediation.
Compliance roadmap
To prepare for compliance with the Forced Labour Regulation, businesses may have to enhance their supply-chain scrutiny and traceability. The Guidelines make clear that operators must be able to promptly demonstrate traceability down to the site of production and provide credible verification of labour conditions. Customs authorities will play a central role in enforcing these investigative steps, potentially leading to delays, shipment suspensions or refusals at the EU borders.
The need to maintain extensive documentation, in order to prepare for investigations, may require new internal processes and resources. Businesses should assess their supply-chain governance and ensure that their compliance systems are capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny before the Forced Labour Regulation becomes applicable on 14 December 2027.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Tobias Dolle
Origin circumvention on the rise? Thailand strengthens controls over a list of ‘surveillance goods’ exported to the US under non-preferential trade regimes
By Alya Mahira, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 1 June 2026, the Notification of the Department of Foreign Trade Regarding the Verification of Origin of Goods for Issuing Non-Preferential Certificates of Origin for Surveillance Goods Exported to the US B.E. 2569 entered into force in Thailand. The Notification aims at strengthening controls over designated ‘surveillance goods’, which refers to goods subject to US anti-dumping measures and ‘reciprocal’ tariff circumvention. Under the Notification, these goods are now subject to mandatory origin verification by Thailand’s Department of Foreign Trade (hereinafter, DFT), which is intended to ensure that the goods genuinely qualify as originating in Thailand and to prevent ‘origin washing’, which refers to a deceptive trade practice under which an exporter disguises the actual country where a product was manufactured to evade Customs duties, import restrictions, or trade barriers. According to the DFT, the Notification aims at safeguarding Thai export integrity, namely by preventing tariff evasion and the circumvention of trade measures.
This article addresses the risk of origin circumvention in Thailand and within the broader Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter, ASEAN), provides an overview of the Notification, and highlights the implications for businesses.
Addressing the risk of origin circumvention
Rules of origin refer to the legal framework used to determine the “nationality” of goods to apply trade measures, such as preferential duties, quotas, and anti-circumvention duties. A Certificate of Origin is the key document in international trade that certifies a product’s country of origin. In recent years, certain ASEAN Member States, notably Thailand and Viet Nam, have faced heightened US scrutiny over transshipment practices, where traders misrepresent goods from certain origins, such as China, as local exports. By routing products through ASEAN Member States, without adding substantial value and indicating them as being of Thai or Vietnamese origin, certain traders purposefully circumvent US and EU anti-dumping duties or seek lower tariff rates under applicable preferential trading arrangements.
In order to address origin circumvention involving primarily Chinese goods, in 2022 the DFT introduced a mandatory requirement under which exporters of designated ‘surveillance goods’, referring to goods carrying a high risk of origin circumvention bound for the US or the EU, such as certain aluminium foil, honey, and wire rod, must obtain a product origin verification statement from the DFT prior to applying for a Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin. This DFT-issued verification statement serves as official certification that the exported goods are genuinely of Thai origin and do not involve fraudulent origin declarations.
Thailand’s mandatory requirement to verify the origin of goods
In 2023, the requirement of product origin verification and the list of ‘surveillance goods’ were updated by the Notification of the Department of Foreign Trade Regarding the Verification of Origin for Surveillance Goods B.E. 2566 (hereinafter, 2023 Notification), which provided, inter alia, for: 1) Rules for the verification procedure; 2) Documentary and submission requirements; 3) The validity period of verification results (i.e., 2 years); and 4) Grounds for revoking a verification result. All exporters of covered goods, regardless of whether they manufacture the exported ‘surveillance goods’, must submit the following documents via the DFT’s Rules of Origin Verification System (i.e., ROVERs PLUS): 1) Official certification of manufacturing business operations issued by the Thai competent authority; 2) Proof of the production process; 3) Records of raw material purchases and sales (e.g., invoices, bills of lading); and 4) Any other documents necessary for the verification of the origin of the goods.
Under the 2023 Notification, once exporters had submitted all required documents, the DFT verifies the information against US or EU rules of origin. Upon confirming Thai origin, the DFT issues a verification statement through the ROVERs PLUS system, which exporters must present when applying for a Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin for the export of the ‘surveillance goods’ to the US or the EU. The list of ‘surveillance goods’ currently comprises 58 items and indicates their Harmonised System (hereinafter, HS) Codes subject to US or EU anti-dumping duties or tariffs.
On 18 May 2026, the 2023 Notification was repealed and replaced by two separate notifications, one specifically tailored to exports to the US and the other for exports to the EU, respectively. While the verification requirement, the procedure, and the list of ‘surveillance goods’ for the EU remain substantially unchanged, the Notification addressing exports to the US introduces two amendments. Firstly, it shortens the validity period of the verification results for US-bound exports from two years to one year, requiring exporters to regularly reassess and update their cost and production data to ensure that origin verifications continue to reflect their current manufacturing and sourcing conditions. Secondly, it expands the list of ‘surveillance goods’ foreseen for exports to the US from 49 product categories (covering 194 HS Codes) to 67 product categories (covering 294 HS Codes). Newly added products include cased pencils (9609.10), large residential washers (8450.11, 8450.20, 8450.90), and polyester textured yarn/polyester staple fibre or fine denier polyester staple fibre (5402.33, 5402.52, 5503.20).
Navigating anti-circumvention measures across ASEAN
ASEAN lacks a unified regional legal framework to address origin circumvention, relying instead on ASEAN Member States’ national laws to trace product origin and to counter trade remedy evasion (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 10 of 19 May 2025). Apart from Thailand, other ASEAN Member States have also strengthened their respective origin verification and certification regimes.
On 6 May 2025, in light of US concerns, Malaysia had announced that, with immediate effect, Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin for exports to the US would be issued exclusively by Malaysia’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), at the request of the applicant. This replaced the previous system, under which such certificates were issued by business councils, chambers, or associations appointed by the Ministry.
On 21 April 2025, Viet Nam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) issued Decision No. 103/QD-BCT, which revoked the authorisation granted to the Viet Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) to issue certificates of origin and certificates of non-manipulation, transferring these responsibilities directly to the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
The various measures introduced by Thailand, Malaysia, and Viet Nam, which centralise the issuance of Certificates of Origin under direct government oversight, represent a concrete response to heightened US scrutiny of origin fraud and transshipment practices. This regulatory shift is intended to reduce the risk of ‘origin washing’, enhance the credibility of origin certification systems, and mitigate the risk of further trade tensions with the US.
Implications for businesses
Businesses exporting to the US should carefully review the newly updated list of designated ‘surveillance goods’ and the corresponding HS Codes set out in the Notification to ensure full compliance with the origin verification requirements. Where there is any uncertainty as to whether a product falls within the scope of the Notification, businesses should consider seeking legal advice to avoid instances of non-compliance. Failure to comply may result in the refusal to issue a Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin, and could expose exporters to increased scrutiny, enforcement actions, or penalties by the US authorities.
The compliance risks are likely to increase further, given the recent integration of real-time data sharing and joint factory audits between the DFT and Thai Customs. Any origin non-compliance can immediately block the issuance of Certificates of Origin and trigger severe legal penalties under the Thai Customs Act. Moreover, according to the DFT, from early 2027, it plans to “deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to assist officials in detecting anomalies in origin certification applications, enhance data-sharing and connectivity among relevant government agencies, and strengthen post-verification audits of origin claims, among other measures”.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Indonesia updates its regulatory framework for food packaging: Advancing food safety and sustainability?
By Joanna Christy, Paolo R. Vergano, and Tobias Dolle
On 30 June 2026, Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, issued by Indonesia’s Food and Drug Authority (i.e., Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan, hereinafter, BPOM), entered into force. The Regulation repeals and replaces BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019 on Food Packaging. BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 was issued, inter alia, in response to the increasing adoption of reusable and recycled packaging.
This article provides an overview of BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026, examines the new regulatory framework for reusable and recycled food packaging, and considers how these developments support Indonesia’s broader sustainability and circular economy objectives.
Indonesia’s food packaging framework
Previously, BPOM Regulation 20/2019 provided the regulatory framework for food packaging materials that come into direct or indirect contact with food. The Regulation addressed the safety of food packaging materials through requirements governing the substances that may be used in food packaging, the limits of substances that may migrate from packaging to food, and the testing methods used to assess compliance with those limits. BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 repeals and replaces BPOM Regulation 20/2019, but retains its core regulatory approach to food packaging safety and continues to apply to a broad range of food packaging materials, including plastics, rubber and elastomers, paper and paperboard, ceramics, glass, metals and metal alloys, and multilayer materials.
BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 retains the positive-list approach to food-contact substances, under which only substances expressly listed under the Regulation are authorised for use in food packaging. However, BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 expands and updates the list of authorised substances, such as to include Oleamide and Bisphenol S. Annex III to BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 lists the substances permitted for use in food packaging. BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 expands the regulatory framework to introduce dedicated requirements for reusable and recycled food packaging.
Introducing dedicated provisions for reusable and recycled food packaging
A significant development under BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 is the introduction of dedicated provisions for reusable and recycled food packaging. While BPOM Regulation No. 20/2019 recognised food packaging made from recycled materials, it did not establish any dedicated requirements. BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 defines ‘reusable food packaging’ as “food packaging intended for repeated use” (e.g., reusable plastic containers), while ‘recycled food packaging’ is defined as “packaging made from recycled materials that has undergone reprocessing” (e.g., plastic packaging made from recycled plastic).
Under BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026, reusable and recycled food packaging must comply with the food safety requirements applicable to the relevant packaging material. However, the Regulation establishes additional testing requirements for reusable food packaging. In this context, Annex V to BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 requires testing for: 1) Total migration, namely the overall amount of substances that may migrate from the packaging into food; and 2) Specific migration, namely the amount of a particular chemical substance from the packaging, such as bisphenol A that migrates into the packaged food, which must remain within the applicable migration limit.
These tests must generally be conducted over three consecutive cycles using the same sample to assess whether migration levels remain within the prescribed limits during the packaging material’s repeated use. The Annex further requires migration levels to remain stable or decrease over successive tests, demonstrating that the packaging material does not deteriorate in a manner that could compromise food safety.
Aligning Indonesia’s food packaging framework with international developments
Indonesia’s regulatory framework currently only requires producers to reduce packaging waste, rather than mandating the use of recycled or reusable packaging materials. Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. P.75/MENLHK/SETJUN/KUM.1/10/2019 regarding the Roadmap for Waste Reduction by Producers foresees, inter alia, that manufacturers, including food and beverage producers, should reduce their packaging waste by 30% by 2029 and to prohibit, from 1 January 2030, the use of plastic straws, single-use plastic bags, polystyrene, and plastic foam food containers.
Although recycled or reusable packaging can reduce waste and reliance on virgin materials, such as newly produced plastic resin, its wider adoption depends, in part, on ensuring that it remains safe for food contact. Therefore, by introducing dedicated food-safety provisions for reusable and recycled food packaging, including migration testing requirements for reusable plastic packaging under Annex V to BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026, there is now greater regulatory certainty for businesses, which may support the wider adoption of sustainable packaging solutions.
While Indonesia starts to address the food-safety aspects of reusable and recycled food packaging, other jurisdictions have already adopted more detailed frameworks. Notably, the EU has been at the forefront of regulating food-contact materials, including in the context of more sustainable approaches. Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 of 15 September 2022 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foods provides for a comprehensive regime governing recycled plastic materials intended to come into contact with food. In addition to requiring compliance with migration limits, Regulation 2022/1616 establishes detailed requirements governing, inter alia, recycling technologies, processes, quality assurance, traceability, and documentation to ensure that recycled plastics remain safe for food-contact applications.
At the Southeast Asian regional level, the ASEAN General Guidelines on Food Contact Materials recognise the growing use of recycled food-contact materials. While the Guidelines do not prescribe detailed technical requirements, they indicate that recycled materials should only be used where their safety has been demonstrated through the adoption of specific national measures governing key aspects, such as migration limits, authorised substances, and testing methods.
Implications for businesses
Food packaging already placed on the market in Indonesia must comply with the requirements under BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 within 12 months of its entry into force, namely by 30 June 2027. The introduction of BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 is poised to have significant implications for manufacturers and importers of food packaging materials. Businesses will need to review their products and manufacturing processes to ensure compliance with the updated requirements governing food packaging materials and food-contact substances, including migration limits, authorised substances, and applicable safety assessment requirements.
For businesses producing or supplying reusable or recycled food packaging, BPOM Regulation No. 11/2026 introduces additional compliance obligations. Reusable plastic food packaging is now subject to dedicated migration testing requirements under Annex V thereto. While these requirements may increase testing and compliance costs, they also provide greater regulatory certainty for businesses producing or using reusable and recycled packaging, as well as for consumers.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Recently adopted EU legislation
Trade Remedies
Food Law
Other
Amanda Carlota, Alya Mahira, Florette Peter, Imelda Jo Anastasya, Joanna Christy, Paolo R. Vergano, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle contributed to this issue.
Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social
To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.