Netherlands: the 2019 Child Labour Due Diligence Act and its commencement gap
The Senate adopted the Child Labour Due Diligence Act in May 2019. The Act set out a consumer-facing declaration and investigation scheme, an action plan for reasonable suspicions, and a complaint route, while leaving its commencement to royal decree.
- Development
- 14 May 2019
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
This newly written historical account concerns the dated record above. It is not a recovered article or document from the former publisher. Later developments are identified separately.
From the Senate vote to the published Act
The Dutch Senate adopted Attje Kuiken’s child-labour due-diligence bill on 14 May 2019. The Senate’s adoption record describes a scheme aimed at preventing goods and services made with child labour from reaching Dutch end-users. The resulting Act was dated 24 October 2019 and published as Staatsblad 2019, 401. Its parliamentary passage and its commencement were separate legal steps.
The market connection was important. Article 4 of the published Act covered businesses established in the Netherlands that supplied Dutch end-users, and also businesses established elsewhere supplying those end-users. It provided for a declaration that due diligence was being exercised, with declarations published in a regulator’s register. It was not simply a rule about the nationality of a parent company.
Investigation, response and complaints
Article 5 defined the investigation: a business was to examine reasonably accessible sources for reasonable suspicion that its goods or services had been produced using child labour. If that suspicion existed, it had to establish and implement an action plan. Article 4 concerned the declaration; Article 5 set out the investigation and response. These provisions should not be reversed or treated as a guarantee that every product was free from abuse.
The complaint mechanism was also specific. Under Article 3, an affected person or legal entity needed a concrete indication of non-compliance by an identifiable business. The complaint first had to be raised with that business; the regulator could consider it after handling by the business or after six months without handling. Article 7 required a binding instruction before an administrative fine.
Why adoption did not establish an operative duty
Article 12 left entry into force to a royal decree. The official statute’s commencement provision therefore prevents the Senate vote or publication date from being presented as proof that businesses already owed these duties in 2019. This is an account of the adopted 2019 scheme, rather than a statement that it is currently in force.
Our analysis: The design connected a public declaration to investigation, an action plan and a defined complaint process. Each component answered a different enforcement question. For someone following the Dutch legislative history, the unresolved commencement step matters as much as the ambition of the text: an adopted framework and an operative compliance obligation are different legal positions.