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

June 5, 2019

Moving Employees from a Rep. Office to a Foreign-Invested Enterprise in Vietnam

Informed Counsel

In recent years in Vietnam, new policies and changes in the law have led to many situations where foreign companies are no longer allowed to operate as representative offices (ROs), or find that it is no longer optimal to do so. As a result, many companies are converting or considering the conversion of their ROs into full subsidiaries or “foreign-invested enterprises” (FIEs). This has been an especially hot topic in the pharmaceutical sector after changes brought on in 2017 by new legislation.   

Establishing an FIE can open up new business opportunities and is recommended for companies with serious long-term commitments to Vietnam, but the shift from RO to FIE can pose its share of challenges, particularly in the area of labor and employment. A clear understanding of the conversion process will help ensure a smooth transition.

Representative Offices: A Good Place to Start   

ROs are very common as a first step when foreign companies enter the Vietnam market. The RO is a quick and relatively simple way to get started, and allows the company to explore the market and establish relationships with Vietnamese businesses (distributors, agents, etc.) without a massive outlay of investment capital.

The problem with the RO is that it is only allowed to conduct a limited scope of business activities under the law. Specifically, ROs are not permitted to “directly engage in profit-making activity in Vietnam.” Though such activity is not clearly defined in the law, it is understood to mean that the RO cannot provide goods or services to distributors or consumers, or collect money from them. The RO is meant to be merely a liaison office for its foreign parent company.   

Though ROs have been known to find creative ways of “doing business without doing business,” most companies with serious interest in the Vietnam market will eventually choose to establish FIEs in the form of limited liability companies or joint-stock companies. FIEs are allowed to conduct a much greater scope of business activities than ROs, including profit-making activities, though the licensing process is correspondingly longer and more complicated.

For some companies, the establishment of an FIE is more a necessity than a choice. For example, in the pharmaceutical sector, with the effectiveness of Decree 54/2017/ND-CP dated May 8, 2017, guiding the Law on Pharmacy (as amended) and its implementation documents, it became clear that ROs of foreign pharmaceutical companies could no longer directly employ medical representatives who conduct drug introduction activities to healthcare professionals without valid medical representative cards formally issued by the provincial department of health under the name of the RO. In turn, the provincial departments of health will no longer issue those cards to ROs, or renew the RO’s existing cards, which has effectively rendered the practice impossible. As a result, these companies have been “urged” to set up their own FIEs, not only to conduct actual pharmaceutical business in Vietnam in the long run, but also to receive the medical representatives and other staff from their ROs.

Moving Employees to the FIE   

In theory, once an FIE is successfully established, the RO’s employees can be moved to the FIE, and the foreign investor can officially close the RO, though the procedure is not always so simple. In the pharmaceutical sector, for example, the RO may need to be maintained in parallel with the FIE for a certain period of time to ensure the smooth operations of the FIE as well as the drug export-import activity.   

To move employees from the RO to the FIE, labor contracts between the RO and the employees must be terminated. To ensure a smooth migration, that should be structured as a mutual termination agreement, pursuant to which no involvement from the local labor authority or the trade union is required. A termination notice must be prepared, along with minutes of termination and liquidation of the labor contract.   

To let employees go who do not agree to the mutual termination, the RO will need to prepare a “labor usage plan” to describe the situation and clearly demonstrate that the termination of the labor relationship is necessary to comply with the law. The labor usage plan must be submitted to/discussed with the appropriate-level trade union for its consideration and approval. This procedure can be rather time-consuming as Vietnamese labor law is very protective of employees and the trade unions, especially the district trade union federations, will review the labor usage plan very carefully to ensure there are no contents viewed as unfair to the impacted employees. Thus, it is always better to attempt to reach agreement on mutual termination, even if it requires additional expense.   

The termination package provided to the RO’s departing employees will typically include:

  • salary accrued up until the termination date;
  • a prorated portion of any 13th month salary (commonly provided in labor contracts in Vietnam);
  • unused annual leave; and
  • statutory severance allowance, where applicable.

An additional payment may be negotiated by the parties to be offered as “goodwill,” and is typically determined by the seniority of the employee—for example, the employee may receive one-half month’s or one month’s salary for each year of employment.   

The RO must then ensure that all insurance and tax obligations are fulfilled. The former employees must be deregistered with the social insurance body, and all social insurance premiums and income personal income tax for the employees must be paid up to the contract termination date.   

On the FIE side, the newly established entity will sign new employment contracts with the migrated employees. In practice, the terms of these contracts should be at least as favorable as the terms in the previous contracts with the RO.   

The FIE can then register the migrated employees with the social insurance body and begin paying premiums for them, and also declare the employees with the tax authority, in order to assume their personal income tax obligations.

Planning Ahead   

Navigating Vietnamese labor law can be a challenge for foreign companies, as the country tends to be more protective of employees than many other jurisdictions, and requires strict adherence to formal protocol. Companies who make the decision to convert their ROs in Vietnam to FIEs would be wise to set out a step-by-step employee migration plan in advance, with the assistance of experienced advisors, to ease the transition and ensure business continuity.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 22, 2026
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
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,
March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has issued a regulation imposing additional requirements for amending a company’s directors and signatory power to designate a foreign national as an authorized signatory of the company. This measure, effective April 1, 2026, has been introduced in response to the widespread use of Thai nationals as nominees to conduct business on behalf of foreigners, a practice considered to have an adverse impact on the country’s economic stability and security. The new measures are particularly concerned with changes to the authorized signatory structure of companies that originally had only Thai directors authorized to sign for and bind the company. Under the new rules, any amendment that results in a foreign national becoming an authorized signatory—whether solely or jointly—for such a company will be subject to additional verification. Directors signing an application to register such an amendment to the company’s authorized signatory structure are now also required to provide a statement confirming that all shareholders of the company have made genuine contributions and no Thai national has assisted with, supported, or participated in business activities in a nominee capacity. Implications Companies intending to appoint foreign directors as authorized signatories should be aware of the increased regulatory requirements and assessments. Additional documentation and confirmations may be required as part of the registration process.