| Brief Overview
Third-party relationships are one of the fastest-growing export control risks. Regulators expect companies to detect behavioural red flags, monitor intent, control technology access, and prove governance at boardroom level. Firms that elevate their approach gain resilience, regulatory confidence, and competitive advantage. |
Export control regimes across the UK, U.S., EU, and allied jurisdictions have undergone significant tightening in recent times. That tightening is reshaping liability, pushing it upstream.
This pertains to exporters themselves, as well as their broader ecosystems of distributors, brokers, contract manufacturers, logistics providers, research partners, and even cloud-service vendors: export controls are expanding. So is corporate liability.
“The growing number of export restrictions is disrupting companies’ market strategies and tangling their supply chains.”
- “Restricted: How export controls are reshaping markets”, McKinsey & Company
Why this mattersExport controls have shifted from a specialist compliance concern to a strategic enterprise risk. As diversion pathways evolve and IP moves across borders digitally, companies are increasingly judged not by their internal controls, but by the behaviour of their distributors, research partners, and service providers. Boardroom-level oversight is now essential; those who master it aren’t just safer, but better positioned to win trust, licences, and market share. |
Expert advisory on third-party risk in export controls →
Export controls, third-party risk, and value chain
In the UK, the 2025 regulatory updates under the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) bring a refreshed control list into force, as of 16 December 2025. The changes align the UK’s consolidated export control list with recent multilateral export control regimes, reflecting updated definitions of dual-use goods, emerging technologies, and broader compliance obligations.
At the same time, licensing statistics show growing strain: in 2025, the number of standard individual export licences (SIELs) granted dropped compared with historical averages, while refusals increased: a signal that regulators are scrutinising export applications more closely, especially where dual-use or high-risk items are concerned.
Beyond licensing bottlenecks, enforcement itself has grown more aggressive. In 2025, several UK exporters faced heavy compound settlements for unlicensed exports of military-listed goods under the Export Control Order 2008. In October 2024, one company alone was issued a compound settlement offer of over £370k after a breach.
In parallel, in the U.S. the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has expanded risk thresholds under new rules: under the latest 50%-ownership rule, exporters, re-exporters, or transfers may face civil – or even criminal – liability if they deal with entities majority-owned by a party on the U.S. “Entity List.”
Beyond a business simply classifying its own items correctly, export control compliance extends to its entire value-chain. Export control risk has morphed into third-party liability risk – where partners, resellers, cloud-service vendors, logistics intermediaries, and even third-country subsidiaries can trigger enforcement consequences that cascade back to you.
The third-party problem: where risk sits in modern supply chains
In a fragmented global trade environment, export control risk lies not only with the original exporter, but with third parties further down the value chain. Contract manufacturers, integrators, and subcontractors often handle components across multiple jurisdictions; if a partner misdeclares technology, or bypasses licensing requirements, the original exporter can face liability.
Distributors or resellers selling into high-risk or embargoed jurisdictions create “diversion risk.” Regulators (especially under frameworks like the U.S. EAR) increasingly hold exporters accountable for the downstream use of their products. Trade-finance and logistics intermediaries – freight forwarders, customs brokers, and payment agents – are another hotspot: misleading documentation, ambiguous origin claims, split shipments, or transit through third countries can trigger enforcement scrutiny.
Opaque beneficial ownership structures, including shell companies, joint ventures, and investment vehicles, also amplify risk. Regulators expect transparency on ultimate owners and affiliations with sanctioned entities; inadequate due diligence itself may be considered a breach. Even when products or technology never physically leave the exporter (such as software, technical data, or transfers to overseas R&D partners), third-party risk can persist.
Regulatory red flags
Increasingly, regulatory scrutiny is concentrated on the diversion pathways that sit behind seemingly legitimate orders: goods routed through classic trans-shipment corridors such as the UAE, Türkiye, and Central Asia; procurement requests that spike suddenly, or follow unusual sequencing; or counterparties whose declared end-use doesn’t align with the sensitivity of the technology in question.
Investigators also pay attention to “soft” indicators, such as requests for remote troubleshooting, or cloud-based accesses: both of which might potentially allow a third party to interact with controlled or dual-use technology from afar. Typically, a business placing an order may look low-risk, but under closer investigation, operates with a trading footprint, logistics patterns, or financing arrangements that leave it in breach of export controls.
Due diligence 2.0
Most organisations can say, truthfully, that they “screen” third parties. However, from a regulatory perspective, screening is not the same as understanding intent. The required level of diligence – what some in finance and business are terming “due diligence 2.0” – looks beyond onboarding checks and KYC (know-your-customer) files.
Rather, this heightened diligence involves asking whether a counterparty’s behaviour aligns with its stated purpose. For instance:
- Are ordering patterns consistent with capabilities?
- Do shipping routes make economic sense?
- Does the beneficial ownership (past the first layer) reveal actors operating in high-risk jurisdictions, or with access to dual-use tech?
It may also evaluate how a partner interacts with your technology stack:
- Who has cloud credentials that could grant remote access to controlled designs?
- Which distributors or repair centres have the capability to extract sensitive data?
Questions like these are pushing companies to really understand the deep operational realities of their supply chain partners. Increasingly, boardrooms need continuous monitoring, and an always-defensible governance trail.
Technology transfer and knowledge leakage
A company can fall foul of export controls without actually shipping products: the risk here is in how knowledge, access, and expertise move across borders through third-party relationships. International research partnerships, joint ventures, and cross-border R&D all create channels through which sensitive IP can be accessed, reproduced, or repurposed – often inadvertently.
The same may apply to foreign students, visiting researchers, and contracted engineers whose work grants them proximity to dual-use technologies subject to deemed-export rules.
What “good” looks like
A template approach to third-party export control risk
For boardrooms, the goal is the capability to demonstrate credible oversight of who can access products, data, IP, and supply chain.
Managing third-party export control risk |
|
| Component | What “good” looks like |
|
Tier partners by behaviour, jurisdiction, and access risk (not just sector). Apply enhanced scrutiny to distributors, logistics partners, research collaborators (etc) in high-risk corridors. |
|
Validate beneficial ownership, map intermediaries, and verify that a partner’s actual trading footprint aligns with its stated business model. |
|
Detect unusual orders, routing anomalies, or end-use inconsistencies. Embed monitoring triggers that escalate suspicious activity to senior decision-makers. |
|
Use export control clauses: audit rights, tech-access restrictions, licence-flow-down requirements, and mandatory notification of ownership or capability changes. |
|
Codify when a transaction moves to legal, trade compliance, HR, or executive oversight. |
|
For instance; legal assesses jurisdiction, compliance screens, procurement manages lifecycle risk, trade teams confirm licensing, and tech security governs IP access. Leadership ensures integrated, not siloed, control. |
The strategic upside: from defensive compliance to competitive advantage
Ultimately, this enhanced governance of third-party export controls enables smoother market access, simplifies export licensing conversations, and reduces regulatory intervention – especially in high-growth, high-scrutiny sectors.
In addition, a more transparent supply chain naturally strengthens resilience. This helps companies avoid the operational shocks that could follow partner failures, illicit diversion, or last-minute licensing blocks. For OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and government customers, it also signals dependability: buyers increasingly prioritise partners who can prove control over their third-party ecosystem.
Businesses committed to cultivating these deeper strategic and operational capabilities gain a significant competitive edge. They build trust much faster, move more confidently through high-risk jurisdictions, and position themselves as a “safe pair of hands” in markets where export control assurance is a differentiator, not a given.