The European Commission published, on Wednesday 14 September, its proposal for a regulation to combat forced labour in the wake of its President’s State of the Union speech.
Around 27.6 million people are in forced labour worldwide, according to a report by the International Labour Organization (ILO) published on 12 September.
“We must act on this, and therefore we propose a system to eliminate force labour products from EU market”, said the EU Commissioner for Trade, Valdis Dombrovskis, at the event.
It is also a question of defending European values in the world, according to the European Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton: “Our Single Market is a formidable asset to prevent products made with forced labour from circulating in the EU, and a lever to promote more sustainability across the globe”.
The Commission’s DG Trade shares the file with the DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).
As detailed earlier in our columns, the instrument foreseen by the Commission aims at removing from the European market or blocking at the border goods produced by forced labour, once an investigation has been conducted (see EUROPE 13018/2).
Member States will be responsible for the implementation
The Commission expects each Member State to have an authority in place to implement this regulation. In particular, it will provide them with a database detailing the risks of forced labour in specific geographical areas or for specific products.
On this basis, but also from other sources of information, the authorities will be able to: - initiate a preliminary investigation; - request information from the companies concerned; - decide to open an investigation; - comment on the existence of forced labour behind a product; - take measures to withdraw products from the market and block them at the border (see details of procedures: EUROPE 13018/12).
It seemed logical to the Commission that the Member States should handle implementation, as they already have customs and market surveillance authorities in place, Valdis Dombrovskis told some journalists, including EUROPE.
The regulation applies to all products without distinction
The European Commission has not planned to exempt SMEs from the regulation. This would “affect the effectiveness of the proposal and create uncertainty”, it said.
On the other hand, it states that authorities should take into account the size and resources of economic operators, as well as the extent of forced labour, when setting response deadlines.
The provision of services is not covered by the proposal, which focuses on products. “Our analysis refers to something we see as a sizable, tangible problem. Forced labour is part of the services provisions but the real added value is to provide extremely serious disincentives on products”, an European official told EUROPE.
A welcomed proposal
MEPs broadly welcomed the proposal, which responds to their resolution adopted in June by an overwhelming majority (see EUROPE 12968/23). “The fact that we are making this proposal is a good thing and above all it is something that was difficult to imagine even 1 or 2 years ago”, Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D, French) told EUROPE. For him, “the philosophy of the instrument is the right one”.
However, his group will try to amend the regulation on what they see as the more negative points, such as the two-year period before the regulation is applied or the level of evidence required to ban a product from the market.
The Greens/EFA were more critical of the proposal: for them, it is fundamental that the burden of proof lies with companies and not with the authorities or civil society alerting the violations.
Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, German) said that “too high a burden of proof could weaken the instrument”. Her colleague Yannick Jadot (Greens/EFA, French) said the Commission’s proposal was not up to par.
The EPP was rather satisfied with the terms of the regulation. Angelika Winzig (EPP, Austrian) told EUROPE that it is important that the authorities prove the existence of forced labour in order to protect honest companies.
Economic actors and civil society mixed
The proposal has met with varying reactions from company representatives. BusinessEurope, representing large companies, stressed the need for consistent implementation across the EU. It also advocated for a non-discriminatory model of regulation, with clear guidelines, which seems to be in line with the Commission’s position.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) welcomed the text, which “reflects the detailed recommendations” it had submitted, and “gives a prominent role to trade unions which will be able to alert authorities”.
In contrast, the SMEunited envoy was more critical: “The regulation is likely to affect SMEs severely”, says Luc Hendrickx, Director of Enterprise Policy and External Relations at SMEunited.
He also criticised the Commission for not having carried out an impact assessment before presenting the regulation. “An impact assessment would have determined why existing EU policies are failing to tackle the root of the problem and how their implementation and inspections could be improved”. Digital platforms are conspicuous by their absence in the proposal, moreover, he added.
NGOs, on the other hand, point to a system that risks being too complex. Ben Vanpeperstraete, consultant for the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), considers the proposal insufficient to really combat the problem. In particular, he regrets the lack of a system of redress for victims of forced labour.
See the draft regulation: https://aeur.eu/f/32k (Original version in French by Léa Marchal and Pascal Hansens)