You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 22, 2026

Clearer Picture of Extended Producer Responsibility Emerges in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework.

An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment.

The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below.

Subjects of EPR

The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities.

Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group.

Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion.

Recycling Responsibilities

Decree 110 clearly lists different types of products and packaging subject to recycling, along with mandatory recycling rates and mandatory recycling measures. For example, for aluminum packaging for food products, the mandatory recycling rate is 22% via at least one of two measures: production of commercial aluminum billets or production of packaging or specific products.

Mandatory recycling rates will be adjusted every three years, with each adjustment capped at 10%. The first adjustment is expected in 2029. Excess recycling achieved through advanced technology may be carried forward to offset future obligations.

If recyclable materials are collected for export for recycling or refurbishment abroad, such activities must comply strictly with notification and control requirements under the Basel Convention.

Compliance may be achieved by conducting recycling activities—such as direct recycling by manufacturers or importers with existing appropriate environmental permits or through third parties such as licensed recyclers or qualified organizations authorized to take responsibility for recycling—or by making a financial contribution to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund (VEPF).

Information on recycling entities and authorized organizations responsible for recycling will be published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment on the National EPR Information System, details of which are further specified in Decree 110.

Manufacturers and importers must, on an annual basis, register recycling plans or declare financial contributions by April 1 for products and packaging placed on the market in the preceding year. Entities opting for financial contributions must complete payment to the VEPF by April 20. To facilitate the contribution value, the recycling cost norms (Fs) for each product and type of packaging are issued in other legal documents. Manufacturers and importers may apply the formula in Decree 110 to calculate the contribution value to the VEPF.

In cases where manufacturers have proactively established packaging recovery and reuse systems with a high recovery rate, the system may help to waive such recycling responsibility.

Waste Treatment Responsibilities

For six specific groups of products and packaging, instead of the recycling responsibility mentioned above, waste treatment responsibilities (via payment to the VEPF) will be imposed.

Decree 110 lists the relevant financial contribution rates to support waste treatment activities. For example, for each plastic bottle or plastic box (with a size of less than 500 ml) of finished pesticides, an amount of VND 50 (about USD 0.002) will be imposed as payment to the VEPF.

Waste treatment contribution rates will be adjusted every five years, with each adjustment capped at 15% of the rate applied in the previous period. The first adjustment is expected in 2031. Manufacturers and importers must declare waste treatment contributions annually by April 1 via the National EPR Information System and complete payment to the VEPF by April 20.

Outlook

Decree 110 consolidates Vietnam’s EPR regime into a centralized, transparent, and more coherent regulatory framework. It enhances compliance mechanisms for manufacturers and importers while strengthening the capacity of authorities to manage and supervise EPR implementation. The decree also underscores Vietnam’s strong policy commitment to sustainable development, waste reduction, recycling, and efficient resource use.

Businesses operating in Vietnam should review their EPR strategies and internal compliance processes in preparation for the decree’s entry into force on May 25, 2026.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Life Sciences

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 12, 2025
Thailand’s Customs Department has announced the cancellation of the longstanding de minimis exemption, which waives import duties on goods valued at THB 1,500 or less, as of January 1, 2026. This policy shift will directly impact e-commerce, logistics, and retail sectors, and will have wide-ranging implications for any company involved in cross-border trade with Thailand. Background Under current regulations, imported goods with a customs value (cost, insurance, and freight, or “CIF”) of THB 1,500 or less are exempt from import duties. This has been a cornerstone of the cross-border e-commerce model, allowing for the duty-free import of millions of small parcels. Under the new policy effective January 1, 2026, all imported goods, regardless of value, will be subject to assessment for import duties upon entry into Thailand. The stated rationale for this change is to create fair competition for Thai small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which must pay VAT and other costs on their goods, putting them at a price disadvantage against foreign sellers who utilize the de minimis loophole. Business Implications This policy change will create new costs, compliance burdens, and operational challenges. For foreign e-commerce sellers and platforms: The most direct impact will be the addition of import duties to low-value items. Assuming the costs are passed on to the consumer, the higher prices and potentially more complex or slower customs clearance processes could lead to increased cart abandonment and reduced consumer demand. Businesses should review their pricing models and develop a clear strategy for calculating, declaring, and paying these new duties. For logistics providers and customs brokers: The administrative burden will be considerable. Carriers that previously handled millions of nondutiable parcels will now be required to process them for duty assessment and collection. This may necessitate new IT systems and streamlined processes to avoid delays at
Read More
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s
Read More
October 15, 2025
The Indonesian Food and Drug Administration (BPOM) has introduced more stringent oversight of health supplements containing probiotics with new guidelines that require clinical trials for certain products and expanded documentation standards. BPOM Regulation No. 17 of 2025 replaces the previous 2021 regulation and establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating probiotic strains used in health supplements. Assessment Requirements The new regulation expands the scope of assessment to include not only categorization and documentation but also technical procedures, strain classification, and clinical trial requirements. Unlike the previous regulation, which provided general guidance, the updated framework creates a comprehensive system for evaluating both registered probiotic strains and new or combined strains. Manufacturers must now submit supporting documentation covering strain identification and functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The previous regulation required documentation only on safety, efficacy, and quality. Clinical Trials One of the most significant changes is the requirement for clinical trials conducted in Indonesia for applications that include benefit claims other than maintaining digestive health, or where there are modifications to benefit claims. The regulation specifies that phase 1 trials must demonstrate safety, while phase 2 trials must validate efficacy using statistically valid methods such as double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies). In addition, phase 3 and phase 4 trials may be required, and postmarket surveillance data must be submitted. Technical Assessment Framework Annex 4, a newly introduced section, establishes technical procedures for assessing health supplements containing probiotics in Indonesia. This comprehensive framework outlines criteria for evaluating new probiotic strains, including strain identification, functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The annex introduces a clear classification of claims for health supplement products containing probiotics: General claims(e.g., maintaining digestive health). Functional claims(e.g., normal biological function or activity in the body). Risk reduction claims(e.g., lowering disease risk). The regulation restricts use of the term
Read More