What legislation requires seafood companies to actively screen for modern slavery?

Several laws now require seafood companies to actively screen for modern slavery in their supply chains. In the US, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and the Tariff Act of 1930 both prohibit the import of goods made with forced labor. In the EU, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and the Forced Labour Regulation require companies to identify, prevent, and address forced labor risks across their operations and supply chains. This article walks through what active screening actually involves, where the risks sit in seafood supply chains, and what regulators expect to see as evidence.

Which laws specifically require seafood companies to screen for forced labor?

Several national and regional laws now place direct legal obligations on seafood companies to screen for forced labor. In the US, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act creates a rebuttable presumption that goods from certain regions are made with forced labor, placing the burden of proof on importers. The EU Forced Labour Regulation, which applies from 2027, goes further by allowing authorities to ban products from sale if forced labor is found anywhere in the supply chain.

Beyond those headline laws, a growing number of frameworks create meaningful compliance obligations for seafood businesses specifically:

US Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 307): Prohibits importing goods made wholly or in part with forced or convict labor. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can issue Withhold Release Orders (WROs) against specific vessels, companies, or regions.
EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D): Requires large companies operating in the EU to conduct due diligence across their entire value chain, including upstream suppliers such as fishing vessels and processing facilities.
UK Modern Slavery Act: Requires companies above a revenue threshold to publish an annual transparency statement describing the steps they have taken to identify and address modern slavery risks.
Australia’s Modern Slavery Act: Similar annual reporting requirements for entities with revenue above AUD 100 million.
US SIMP (Seafood Import Monitoring Program): Requires documentation of harvest events for high-risk species, including tuna, which supports traceability and indirectly supports forced labor screening.

The direction across jurisdictions is consistent: passive documentation is no longer sufficient. Regulators increasingly expect companies to demonstrate proactive identification of risk, not just paper compliance after the fact.

What does ‘active screening’ mean under modern slavery laws?

Active screening means taking deliberate, documented steps to identify forced labor risks before goods enter your supply chain, not simply responding to complaints or audits after the fact. Under laws like the EU CS3D and the UFLPA, companies are expected to map their supply chain, assess risk at each tier, and implement ongoing monitoring, not a one-time review.

In practical terms, active screening for seafood companies typically involves:

Mapping supply chain tiers back to the vessel or farm of origin
Checking vessels and fishing companies against IUU blacklists and forced labor watch lists
Reviewing vessel monitoring system (VMS) and AIS satellite data for patterns associated with forced labor, such as extended at-sea periods, transshipment at sea, or port avoidance
Collecting and verifying social compliance certifications such as BSCI/Amfori, SMETA, or the FISH Standard for Crew
Reviewing observer and electronic monitoring (EM) reports where available
Maintaining records that demonstrate these checks were performed per batch or lot

The word “active” is important. Regulators in the EU and US have made clear that simply asking suppliers to self-declare compliance does not meet the standard. Screening needs to be systematic, repeatable, and tied to verifiable data sources.

Which parts of the seafood supply chain carry the highest forced labor risk?

The highest forced labor risks in seafood supply chains tend to concentrate at the first mile: on fishing vessels and at transshipment points, particularly in distant-water fisheries operating in the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Southeast Asian waters. These are the parts of the chain furthest from port, hardest to monitor, and most dependent on labor brokers and crew recruitment intermediaries.

Several specific risk factors make certain supply chain segments more vulnerable than others.

Fishing vessels in distant-water fleets

Crew members on distant-water fishing vessels may spend months at sea without returning to port. Some face debt bondage through recruitment fees, wage withholding, or confiscated documents. Vessels that conduct at-sea transshipment can transfer both catch and crew without ever entering a port where labor conditions could be inspected. Satellite data showing extended at-sea duration, frequent transshipment, or avoidance of monitored ports may indicate elevated risk.

Processing facilities in high-risk regions

Land-based processing facilities, particularly in Thailand, Indonesia, and parts of West Africa, have historically been flagged for labor rights concerns. Migrant workers in these facilities may be especially vulnerable to exploitative conditions. Social audits such as SMETA or BSCI can help assess conditions, but audits alone may not capture all risks, especially where workers face pressure not to speak freely.

Transshipment hubs, where catch from multiple vessels is consolidated before processing, also present a risk point. Once fish from different origins is mixed, tracing individual batches back to specific vessels becomes significantly harder without robust first-mile data capture.

Book a demo

What evidence do regulators accept as proof of forced labor screening?

Regulators generally look for documented, verifiable evidence that a company has taken concrete steps to identify and address forced labor risk, not just stated intentions. The stronger the evidence, the more defensible a company’s position is if its supply chain is scrutinized. Acceptable evidence typically falls into several categories.

Vessel tracking records: VMS and AIS data that shows vessel activity, at-sea duration, and port calls. This helps verify that fishing activity aligns with declared catch and that vessels were not operating in patterns associated with forced labor.
Social compliance certifications: Audit reports and certificates from recognized schemes such as SMETA, BSCI/Amfori, Fair Trade USA, or the FISH Standard for Crew, linked to specific suppliers or facilities.
Observer and EM reports: Independent at-sea observer reports or electronic monitoring footage that documents crew treatment and working conditions.
Database checks: Records showing that vessels, companies, and facilities were checked against IUU blacklists, RFMO registries, and relevant forced labor watch lists.
Batch-level documentation: Chain of custody records that link specific product lots back to verified source vessels or farms, making it possible to trace any product back to its origin.

Regulators in the EU and US increasingly expect this evidence to be available at the batch or shipment level, not just at the company level. A general policy statement about forced labor is unlikely to satisfy an import authority asking for proof that a specific shipment is clean.

What happens to seafood companies that fail to comply?

Seafood companies that fail to screen adequately for forced labor could face a range of serious consequences, spanning trade, legal, and reputational dimensions. The specific outcome depends on the jurisdiction and the law involved, but the direction of enforcement is tightening across the board.

In the US, CBP could issue a Withhold Release Order against a vessel, company, or region, effectively blocking imports until the company can demonstrate that forced labor was not involved. Goods may be detained at the border, and the burden of proving compliance falls on the importer. Under the UFLPA, goods from certain regions are presumed to involve forced labor unless the importer can rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

In the EU, the Forced Labour Regulation could result in products being withdrawn from the market or banned from import and export. Companies found to be non-compliant with CS3D due diligence obligations could face financial penalties and civil liability.

Beyond regulatory penalties, the reputational consequences could be significant. Major retailers and foodservice buyers increasingly require suppliers to demonstrate forced labor compliance as a condition of doing business. A single high-profile forced labor allegation has in some cases led to product delisting, media coverage, and consumer boycotts that far exceeded the cost of the original compliance investment.

How can seafood companies build a compliant screening program?

Building a compliant forced labor screening program involves connecting supply chain visibility with documented verification at each key risk point. The goal is to move from reactive documentation to proactive, systematic monitoring that produces audit-ready records for every batch of product you handle.

A practical starting point is supply chain mapping: identifying every tier of your supply chain back to the vessel or farm of origin. Many companies find that their visibility drops off sharply beyond the first or second tier. Closing that gap is the foundation of any credible screening program.

From there, an effective program typically includes:

First-mile data capture: Collecting vessel tracking data (VMS/AIS) and discharge records at the point of catch, not just at processing. This is the hardest data to reconstruct after the fact and the most valuable for demonstrating clean sourcing.
Automated database checks: Running vessels, facilities, and companies against IUU blacklists, RFMO registries, and forced labor watch lists on a per-shipment basis, not just at onboarding.
Social compliance integration: Linking certification records (SMETA, BSCI, FISH Standard for Crew) directly to the batches of product they cover, so that claims are verifiable at the lot level.
Ongoing monitoring: Treating screening as a continuous process rather than an annual exercise. Vessel ownership changes, flag state changes, and crew changes can all affect risk profiles.
Documented records per batch: Ensuring that every shipment carries a verifiable record of the checks performed, the certifications in place, and the data sources consulted.

SmarTuna’s digital traceability platform is built specifically to support this kind of structured, evidence-based screening. It captures first-mile vessel data via satellite VMS and AIS, assigns a unique Raw Material ID to each batch at port discharge, and automatically checks that batch against more than 15 regulatory and certification databases, including IUU blacklists, RFMO registries, and social compliance schemes. All verification documents are stored digitally per batch, so audit-ready evidence is available instantly rather than assembled manually when a regulator or buyer asks for it.

Frequently Asked Questions

How often should seafood companies update or repeat their forced labor screening?

Forced labor screening should be treated as a continuous, ongoing process rather than a one-time or annual exercise. Key trigger points for re-screening include changes in vessel ownership, flag state, or crew composition, as well as any new IUU listings or watch list updates affecting your suppliers. Regulators under frameworks like the EU CS3D and UFLPA expect per-shipment verification, meaning each batch of product should carry its own documented screening record rather than relying on a single company-level review conducted months earlier.

What's the difference between a social audit and active forced labor screening — aren't they the same thing?

Social audits such as SMETA or BSCI are a valuable component of a screening program, but they are not the same as active forced labor screening on their own. Audits provide a point-in-time snapshot of conditions at a specific facility, but they do not cover at-sea activity on fishing vessels, and workers may face pressure not to speak freely during an audit. Active screening goes further by combining audit data with vessel tracking records, database checks against IUU and forced labor watch lists, and batch-level chain of custody documentation — creating a more complete and continuous picture of risk across the entire supply chain.

Our company sources through a trader or processor — are we still responsible for screening the fishing vessels upstream?

Yes. Under the EU CS3D and the UFLPA, the legal obligation extends across your entire value chain, including upstream tiers you do not directly contract with. Purchasing through an intermediary trader or processor does not transfer or eliminate your compliance responsibility. In practice, this means you need to contractually require your direct suppliers to provide first-mile data — such as vessel IDs, VMS/AIS records, and harvest documentation — and you should verify that data rather than simply accepting supplier self-declarations.

Which species or sourcing regions should seafood companies prioritize for forced labor screening?

Companies should prioritize species and regions where supply chain opacity and labor risk are highest. Tuna, shrimp, and squid sourced from distant-water fleets operating in the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Southeast Asian waters are consistently flagged as elevated-risk categories by regulators and NGOs. Processing facilities in Thailand, Indonesia, and parts of West Africa also warrant closer scrutiny. The US SIMP program already identifies tuna as a high-risk species requiring enhanced harvest documentation, which is a useful baseline indicator of where regulators expect tighter controls.

What is a Withhold Release Order (WRO) and how can a seafood company get one lifted?

A Withhold Release Order is an enforcement tool used by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to detain goods at the border when there is reasonable suspicion that they were produced with forced labor. Once a WRO is in place, the importer bears the burden of proving that the specific shipment is free from forced labor — a high evidentiary bar that requires detailed supply chain documentation, vessel tracking records, and social compliance evidence at the batch level. The best way to avoid a WRO or respond to one is to have robust, pre-existing documentation already in place for each shipment, rather than attempting to reconstruct evidence after goods have been detained.

Can small or mid-sized seafood companies realistically build a compliant screening program, or is this only feasible for large corporations?

Compliance is achievable for companies of all sizes, though the approach needs to be proportionate to the scale and complexity of your supply chain. Smaller companies should focus first on mapping their immediate suppliers and closing visibility gaps at the first mile, even if full multi-tier mapping takes time to develop. Digital traceability platforms like SmarTuna are designed to make systematic, batch-level screening operationally practical without requiring large in-house compliance teams, automating database checks and document storage that would otherwise be time-consuming to manage manually.

What common mistakes do seafood companies make when trying to demonstrate forced labor compliance?

The most common mistake is relying on general policy statements or supplier self-declarations as the primary evidence of compliance — regulators and buyers increasingly treat these as insufficient on their own. Other frequent gaps include conducting screening only at supplier onboarding rather than on a per-shipment basis, failing to link certification records to specific product batches, and losing traceability at transshipment points where catch from multiple vessels is consolidated. Companies also often underestimate how quickly risk profiles can change due to vessel re-flagging, ownership transfers, or crew changes, making ongoing monitoring just as important as initial screening.

← Back to Knowledge Hub