Claims assessment · Practice claim
Child-labour remediation programme in every sourcing region
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Conditional | Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)Empowering Consumers Directive (EmpCo)Forced Labour Regulation View legal reasoningUCPD; FLR context (forced labour); CSDDD for large buyers | Programme existence, coverage %, monitoring-and-remediation results (e.g. CLMRS data); cannot imply zero child labour. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Code; MSA s.54 consistency | Programme metrics consistent with modern-slavery statement. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC Act s.5; UFLPA for forced-labour screening | Coverage and outcome data; no absolute-free implication. |
| CanadaCA | Conditional | Competition Act greenwashing provisions (Bill C-59)Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1); Supply Chains Act s.11(3) | Evidence consistent with filed report incl. remediation-of-income element. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | View legal reasoningACL s.18; MSA s.16 consistency | Programme data consistent with Modern Slavery Statement. |