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

February 23, 2025

Decree 05 Updates Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On January 6, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 05/2025/ND-CP amending and supplementing Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP detailing the Law on Environmental Protection (“Decree 05”). Decree 05 came into effect immediately upon issuance and provides several changes to the regulations governing extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) for applicable manufacturers and importers, outlining their obligations concerning the recycling and treatment of discarded products and packages. (See our previous article on Vietnam’s EPR regulations here.)

Outlined below are some critical amendments in Decree 05.

Entities Subject to EPR Regulations

Previously, Decree 08 limited the responsibility for recycling to manufacturers and importers of products and packaging specified in statutory lists. Decree 05 expands this scope by also including entities responsible for the quality and labeling of the regulated products and goods in Vietnam.

Decree 05 inherits the regulations from Decree 08 that manufacturers and importers, if they produce and import products and packaging as stipulated by law, must fulfill their responsibility to recycle or support waste treatment activities. However, Decree 05 amends the lists of products/packaging that must be recycled or undergo waste treatment, and new products/packaging and recycling methods.

Notably, rechargeable batteries (including those used in vehicles or for electrical and electronic devices) have been added to the list of regulated products and self-propelled vehicles and construction machinery have been removed from the list.

Decree 05 also not only streamlines the recycling methods required for each type of product/packaging, but also removes the minimum requirement on the mass of products/packaging that must be recovered when recycling. Manufacturers and importers now have more flexibility in selecting recycling methods that are more suitable for actual recycling conditions in Vietnam.

Decree 05 has revised the cases of exemption from recycling and waste treatment obligations, clarifying that both packaging manufacturers and importers with annual product sales revenue below VND 30 billion are exempt from recycling responsibilities. The threshold for importers has increased compared to the previous provision. Further, Decree 05 introduces an additional exemption for manufacturers who collect and reuse their own packaging. Specifically, manufacturers who self-collect and reuse packaging to put it back on the market are exempted from recycling and waste treatment obligations if the rate of collection and repackaging meets or exceeds the mandatory recycling rate as stipulated by law.

Competent Authorities

Previously, the prime minister was responsible for adjusting and issuing mandatory recycling rates for each type of product and packaging, and issuing the recycling cost standard for a unit of product and packaging volume (referred to as “Fs” – see below) and the required financial contribution for waste treatment. Under the new decree, these responsibilities have been transferred to the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment.

Definition of Fs

Decree 05 specifies two components for the calculation of the recycling cost standard, “Fs”:

  • Recycling cost associated with the sorting, collecting, transporting, and recycling of products and packaging; and
  • Management cost associated with the supervision and support of the implementation of product and packaging recycling responsibilities. Management cost is specified as 2% of the recycling cost.

In particular, the recycling cost is estimated based on an adjustment coefficient reflecting the level of collection and recycling value of products and packaging: Products and packaging with a high collection rate and high recycling value have a low adjustment coefficient, while products and packaging with a low collection rate and low recycling value have a high adjustment coefficient.

Deadline for Financial Contribution

Decree 08 allowed manufacturers and importers to either pay the full financial contribution for waste treatment to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund by April 20 of each year or split the payment into two installments. However, Decree 05 mandates a full financial contribution in a single installment by April 20 each year. This is a significant change that manufacturers and importers should take note of, especially once the Fs is officially issued.

Tax Incentives

Decree 05 expands upon Decree 08 by providing specific criteria for eligibility for tax incentives beyond corporate income tax. These incentives now include exemptions from export and import taxes for eligible activities.

Specifically, products made from recycling and waste treatment activities in the list of environmental protection activities eligible for incentives and support will be exempted from export tax if they meet certain legal criteria, such as having production activities consistent with the project’s operational objectives, or using waste as production materials.

Similarly, projects importing machinery and equipment for use in waste treatment and environmental protection activities will be exempted from import tax if they meet certain criteria such as having the results of an environmental impact assessment report appraisal approved, or being granted an environmental license.

Related Professionals

Industries

Automotive

Consumer Products

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 2, 2026
On July 24, 2026, a new 12.5% Section 301 tariff took effect on most imports from Thailand into the United States. The tariff was imposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following a finding that Thailand had failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports of goods produced with forced labor. The new tariff replaced the temporary 10% Section 122 surcharge that had applied since February 24, 2026, following the US Supreme Court’s invalidation of the prior tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12.5% tariff is not the only potential source of additional US duties on Thai-origin goods. Thailand is also subject to a separate Section 301 investigation concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity, which could result in additional duties. Unlike the Section 122 surcharge, which was capped at 15% and limited to 150 days, Section 301 provides a more flexible framework for imposing and maintaining trade measures. Section 301 actions are generally subject to a four-year termination rule but may continue following a review if continuation is requested. The new tariff therefore represents a potentially longer-term change in the tariff treatment of Thai-origin goods entering the US market. This article explains the legal and policy developments that led to the new tariff, how the Section 301 tariff differs from the tariff regimes that preceded it, Thailand’s response and ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the practical implications for businesses that manufacture, export, import, or distribute goods between Thailand and the United States. From IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 IEEPA Era (April 2025–February 2026) Beginning in April 2025, the US administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), invoking national emergencies relating to trade
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 17, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has released for public comment a draft bill to amend the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the country’s foundational consumer protection legislation. The draft amendment aims to modernize the nearly five-decade-old framework to address the rapid growth of digital commerce, online advertising, influencer marketing, and new business models. The public consultation period is open until October 10, 2026. Expanded Definitions Covering Digital Commerce The draft significantly broadens several core definitions to capture modern commercial activities: “Consumer” is expanded to include natural persons and nonprofit juristic persons who purchase or receive services, including those solicited by businesses and end users who do not directly pay for the goods or services. “Business operator” now explicitly covers advertising business operators and hired advertising persons, such as influencers and content creators. “Advertising media” is expanded to include digital platforms, social media, and social media user accounts. “Label” now encompasses electronic labels—symbols, codes, or other electronic formats displaying product information. Influencer and Advertising Disclosure Requirements In addition to these expanded definitions, “hired advertising person for selling goods or services” is a new definition covering influencers, content creators, live streamers, affiliate marketers, and virtual online media operators who receive monetary compensation or other benefits for advertising goods or services. Hired advertising persons—including influencers and content creators—must disclose to consumers that content is advertising and reveal their relationship with the business owner. Disclosure is required when the business owner employs the advertiser, pays or provides other benefits for the advertisement, or provides free or discounted products or services. These requirements apply where consumers would not otherwise know that the business has a connection to the person presenting the content. Labeling Requirements for Importers The draft introduces a clearer labeling obligation for importers of label-controlled goods, who must
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More