What UFLPA Compliance Tells Us About Transparency in Fashion

We’ve covered several articles on the latest EU regulations, which aim to enshrine “green,” eco-friendly, and sustainable production practices into legislation, policy, and compliance.

However, the European Commission isn’t alone in its efforts to promote ESG policies. In late 2021, the U.S. enacted a law to prevent goods made with forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China from entering the U.S. market.

The name of that law? The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). Once the UFLPA came into effect on June 21, 2022, complying with its standards placed the burden of proof on the importer to have enough evidence to verify that the goods produced and shipped were from a region free of forced labour.

Below, we’ll explore the UFLPA compliance requirements, key provisions, and their impact on fashion industry transparency in production and supply chains. But it’s worth noting that UFLPA targets one specific region — and that’s not a mistake.

The focus on the Xinjiang industries, in particular, also highlights an underlying geopolitical dynamic. The UFLPA makes the idea lever to “de-risk” global dependence on region-specific supply chains controlled by other countries.

For ESG and sustainability managers, this unique, strategic move also opens up an opportunity to diversify and make their supply chain and production processes more resilient, innovative, and competitive. Let’s dive in.

The Reality Check – What UFLPA Compliance Really Demands from Fashion Brands

The UFLPA introduces a stringent "rebuttable presumption," a key provision that assumes that any goods produced wholly or partly in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) are made with forced labour.

That’s why the burden to prove otherwise sits with importers — they’ll need to have clear, documented evidence that shows their goods don’t come under that presumption. So, when you think about it, compliance with the UFLPA isn’t about reporting numbers continually or being audited, as many other sustainability legislation efforts have sought to do.

In other words, there’s no real “compliance checkbox” to tick. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the main enforcement body. They can detain, exclude, or seize goods suspected of violating UFLPA. However, this doesn’t mean background work and due diligence are not required to prove ethical sourcing. You’ll still need to “do the work,” as it were.

In fact, there are several steps companies importing goods into the U.S. must take to prove they’re not in violation before initiating the import or when the goods arrive at the U.S. borders for legal entry:

Supply chain mapping: Identify all entities and processes involved in producing goods (including upstream suppliers).
Due diligence and risk assessment: Evaluate the risk of forced labour using tools such as third-party audits, supplier questionnaires, and public records.
Documentation and evidence gathering: Many companies use tools for supply chain traceability (e.g., Sourcemap, Everledger, etc.) to demonstrate origin and labour practices.
Training and internal controls: Ensure procurement, legal, and compliance teams are trained on UFLPA expectations.

This law is particularly impactful for the fashion industry, which heavily relies on cotton and textiles. Xinjiang accounts for approximately 90% of China's cotton production, making it a significant source for global apparel supply chains.

Failing to comply can result in:

Seized shipments
Fines and delays
Brand reputation damage
Loss of U.S. market access

CBP, DHS, and the Supply Chain: Who’s Watching, and What Are They Looking For?

Enforcement of the UFLPA is spearheaded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These agencies have intensified scrutiny over imports, detaining shipments suspected of violating the act.

As of early 2025, CBP had detained over 10,000 shipments valued at approximately $3.66 billion, and 43% were denied entry into the United States.

The enforcement process involves meticulous examination of supply chain documentation. Importers must provide comprehensive evidence tracing the origin of their goods, demonstrating that no part of the production involved forced labour. This includes detailed records of sourcing, manufacturing processes, and third-party audits.

Inside the Process — How Brands Are Responding to UFLPA Enforcement

After the first eight months of rollout, Sourcing Group decided to track how well the law worked in 2023. The answers they uncovered pointed to variability across compliance points. For example, the UFLPA seemed to be very successful at blocking goods—between June 2022 and January 2023, CBP flagged around 2,700 shipments with a combined value of $814 million, and one-sixth of them were apparel products.

It also indirectly sparked an understandable shift away from supply chains and supplier relationships reliant entirely or significantly on Chinese-based production.

“[UFLPA] has prompted companies to conduct additional diligence on mapping their supply chains, conducting first-, second-level reviews of suppliers and so on. It has sometimes prompted companies to reshuffle their supply chains and move away from certain supplier relationships [or] entirely from China. And so, if you view it from that perspective, I think the UFLPA has certainly been a very powerful tool to affect change.” — Richard Mojica, attorney leading Miller & Chevalier’s customs and import trade group

Due diligence and supply chain diversification are good things for fashion brands — consumers like them, and they bode extremely well for compliance with co-existing regulations like the EU Omnibus proposal and other green claims initiatives.

But is it actually doing what it set out to do? Nate Herman, senior VP of policy at the American Apparel & Footwear Association, doesn’t see that: “The goal of the UFLPA was to end the oppression against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. That hasn’t happened and I don’t think it’s moved forward the ball on that.”

Brands also face additional challenges:

A lack of transparency over which part of the shipment violated the UFLPA or what triggers a discharge
A sense of the process being fairly arbitrary because a definitive process for enforcement hasn’t actually been defined and implemented
Massive backlogs due to the sheer amount of documentation required (even from legacy companies with a responsible and verifiable sourcing program in place)
A certain level of unenforceability for shipments below $800 that skirt import taxes and the UFLPA trigger — but which are still coming in through small-scale eCommerce sales, with total valuations in the billions.

For its part, the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) has emphasized the importance of collaboration between the fashion industry and U.S. authorities to combat forced labour effectively, and brands are taking heed.

Furthermore, the CBP has acknowledged the complexities of enforcing the UFLPA and is exploring technological solutions to aid compliance. For instance, CBP has allocated resources to develop scientific testing capabilities, such as isotopic testing for cotton, to verify the origin of materials and ensure they are not sourced from regions associated with forced labour.

From Detention to Release: What Happens When Goods Get Held by CBP

When U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detains a shipment under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), the process can be both opaque and time-consuming.

Importers often face significant delays — ranging from six to eight weeks — as they compile and submit extensive documentation to prove that their goods are free from forced labour. These types of delays can be problematic: consider, for example, what delays could mean for seasonal products — they could be obsolete by the time the shipment gets cleared.

Monitoring, Mapping, and Proving: The New Compliance Playbook

In response to UFLPA enforcement, fashion brands increasingly invest in comprehensive supply chain mapping and due diligence practices.

This involves documenting every supply chain tier — from raw material sourcing to final product manufacturing — to ensure that no part of the process involves forced labour. Brands are also adopting technologies like DNA traceability and isotopic testing to verify the origin of materials such as cotton, providing scientific evidence to support their compliance efforts.

We’ll examine a few examples of brands taking proactive steps to streamline their processes for the UFLPA.

#1: Adidas

Adidas has long focused its sustainability efforts on improving traceability throughout the supply chain, particularly in sourcing cotton and other raw materials.
To support these efforts, Adidas uses technology such as blockchain to track the origin of raw materials, providing greater transparency and assurance that its products are not associated with forced labour.
It also conducts extensive audits and partners with organizations like the Ethical Trading Initiative to verify compliance with human rights standards.

#2: Levi Strauss & Co.

In response to the UFLPA, Levi’s has enhanced its traceability systems and increased collaboration with its suppliers to ensure that no raw materials or finished products are sourced from regions with forced labour practices.
Levi’s efforts include implementing supply chain mapping tools and ensuring that all cotton used in its products is ethically sourced.
The company also works with independent auditors and regularly publishes updates on its labour practices and sourcing standards.

#3: The North Face (VF Corporation)

The North Face has worked with third-party organizations to verify the ethical sourcing of materials, particularly focusing on cotton.
It also joined industry initiatives like the Responsible Sourcing Network and the Ethical Trading Initiative to ensure the highest standards of labour practices.

Adidas, Levi Strauss & Co., and The North Face are solid examples of companies taking concrete actions to respond to UFLPA enforcement. They are implementing technologies, mapping their supply chains, and enhancing their due diligence processes to ensure no forced labour is involved in their production lines, particularly in high-risk areas like Xinjiang.

Steps to Take: Building a Supply Chain That Holds Up Under Scrutiny

As regulatory pressure around forced labour intensifies under the UFLPA, fashion brands must take meaningful steps to ensure that their supply chains are resilient, transparent, and fully auditable. This requires a shift from reactive compliance to proactive supply chain governance, starting with foundational practices in risk assessment and supplier engagement.

We’ll examine the practical actions ESG and sustainability managers can take, what traceability really means in the wake of the UFLPA, and platforms, partners, and programs that lead to more efficient “compliance” processes.

Practical Actions for Risk Assessment, Due Diligence, and Supplier Engagement

Step 1: Conduct Comprehensive Risk Assessments

Regularly assess risk by identifying high-risk regions, suppliers, and materials in your supply chain.
Focus on countries and areas linked to forced labour risks, especially cotton, textiles, and certain raw materials.
To understand the human rights risks associated with specific regions, use data-driven tools like the World Bank’s Governance Indicators and reports from organizations like the Ethical Trading Initiative.

Step 2: Develop a Supplier Code of Conduct

Create a clear supplier code of conduct that outlines expectations regarding forced labour, human rights, and ethical labour practices.
Make this code a non-negotiable part of all supplier contracts, with penalties for non-compliance.
Example: The Fair Labor Association’s (FLA) code can serve as a template for developing your own code, ensuring it aligns with international labour standards.

Step 3: Supplier Audits and Training

Conduct regular audits (both announced and unannounced) to ensure compliance with your code of conduct.
Work with third-party auditors, like Bureau Veritas or SGS, to conduct comprehensive labour audits.
Provide ongoing training for suppliers on identifying and preventing forced labour, focusing on the specific challenges of complying with the UFLPA.

Step 4: Engage with Suppliers on Due Diligence

Start transparent conversations with your suppliers about complying with the UFLPA.
Encourage your suppliers to implement robust due diligence processes, such as using the OEKO-TEX® certification to prove ethical materials sourcing.

Going Beyond Country of Origin: What “Traceable” Really Means Now

In today’s enforcement environment, “country of origin” no longer provides sufficient assurance. Brands must now be able to trace products beyond the country level, to the farms, gins, and mills involved in production.

This is particularly critical for cotton, where determining whether fibres originated in Xinjiang could mean the difference between customs clearance and detention. Technologies like blockchain, fibre DNA tagging, and isotopic testing are becoming vital tools for this deeper level of granularity.

For example, isotopic testing can scientifically determine the geographic source of a fibre, offering forensic-level validation that cotton did not originate from prohibited regions.

Third-party certification schemes also play a central role in verifying traceability. Standards like the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), SA8000, and Fair Trade offer a paper trail supporting a brand’s ethical sourcing claims.

However, these certifications must be integrated into everyday operations, not just annual sustainability reports. That means documenting the entire chain of custody, from fabric production to sewing and finishing, with time-stamped data, supplier identifiers, and transaction history.

Brands that invest in centralized supply chain management platforms are better positioned to store, verify, and present this documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) if requested.

Tools, Programs, and Partners That Support Smarter Compliance

The complexity of global supply chains makes it nearly impossible to maintain visibility manually. That’s why brands increasingly turn to digital tools that offer supplier scoring and real-time alerts based on ESG and labour risk indicators.

These tools allow sustainability and compliance teams to prioritize their highest-risk suppliers and take corrective action before a problem escalates into a shipment detention or reputational issue.

Blockchain is another powerful tool for transparency. Platforms specifically built with functionality that offers tamper-proof ledgers can help document every transaction along a product’s lifecycle. That’s why blockchain technology is well-suited for textiles and fashion: it can help verify material origins and prevent unauthorized subcontracting.

Brands looking to go further can also use trade analysis platforms like Import Genius or Global Trade Atlas, which provide customs-level insights on supplier shipments and potential Xinjiang-linked entities.

Partnerships are another essential piece of the playbook. Many brands are joining multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Responsible Sourcing Network or the Global Fashion Agenda, where they can collaborate with NGOs, competitors, and government bodies to improve sourcing practices. These partnerships often offer access to risk databases, tools, and vetted vendors that help streamline compliance.

Finally, it’s crucial that internal teams — especially those in sourcing, legal, and logistics — are trained on UFLPA-specific protocols. Brands should conduct regular training sessions to align staff on documentation standards, supplier engagement strategies, and how to respond in the event of a CBP detention. Legal counsel with experience in forced labour legislation can also provide invaluable guidance on preparing for enforcement scenarios and conducting corrective actions if needed.

Final Word — What UFLPA Compliance Says About the State of Fashion

As legislation continues to evolve globally — from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to mandatory human rights disclosures in Australia and Canada—fashion brands will be expected to prove not just where their products are made but also how, by whom, and under what conditions.

UFLPA and its enforcement prove a number of unique takeaways for ESG and sustainability managers:

First, compliance now demands deep visibility into all supply chain tiers, not just tier-one vendors.
Second, documentation, verification, and technology-driven traceability have become non-negotiable tools for proving ethical sourcing.
Third, supply chain integrity must be designed into products from the outset, not retrofitted under pressure.
And finally, companies that succeed under UFLPA scrutiny collaborate across teams, geographies, and external partners to embed due diligence into daily operations.

At its core, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act compels brands to move beyond surface-level supplier declarations and grapple with the full complexity of their global supply chains. So, while some aspects of enforcement might seem like a regulatory burden, compliance is more like a response that could, if seized, transform the fashion industry’s deepest structural challenges.

For ESG and sustainability leaders, the law clarifies that traceability, ethical sourcing, and proactive risk mitigation are now essential operational pillars. Brands that understand this will not only weather regulatory scrutiny but also lead the future of fashion.