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

October 4, 2023

Recycling Responsibilities for Producers and Importers in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Extended producer responsibility (“EPR”), a strategy whereby producers are held accountable for the environmental impact of their products throughout their entire life cycle, including disposal and recycling, has become more and more familiar to manufacturers in Vietnam. According to the director of the legal department of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, EPR is an alternative financial solution for managing waste and increasing recycling without raising environmental protection taxes and fees, which may help Vietnam to maintain a closed loop of resources in manufacturing.

New EPR Regulations Applicable to Producers and Importers

In 2020 and 2022, the new Law on Environmental Protection 2020 and its guiding Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP were promulgated, introducing a legal framework for EPR (“New EPR Regulations”) imposed on not only producers but also importers. Under the New EPR Regulations, producers and importers of certain types of products and packaging are responsible to collect and treat waste and recycle their products and packaging. The responsibility to collect and treat waste took effect on January 10, 2022, while there are different timelines being phased in from 2024 to 2027 for the recycling of products and packaging, depending on the type.

For the purpose of compliance with the recycling requirement under the New EPR Regulations, the producers and importers can implement the recycling obligation by themselves, or engage a third party to recycle or organize the recycling, or make a financial contribution to the Vietnam Environment Protection Fund to support the recycling process. This will cause an increase in cost and, hence, an impact on prices of certain products in the near future.

Exceptions to the recycling obligation include:

  • Producers and importers of products and packaging for (i) export or temporary import for re-export or (ii) manufacture or import for research, study, or testing purposes.
  • Packaging producers having revenue from sales and services of less than VND 30 billion (approx. USD 1.23 million) in the previous year.
  • Packaging importers having a total import value (calculated by customs value) of less than VND 20 billion (approx. USD 820,000) in the previous year.

List of Regulated Products

The New EPR Regulations provide a list of products and packaging for which producers and importers must comply with the recycling obligations, including their recycling percentage for the first three years and the compulsory recycling modes.

The products and packaging subject to the New EPR Regulations include:

  • Consumer packaging for certain products including food, cosmetics, medicines, fertilizers, animal feed, veterinary drugs, detergents and preparations for household, agricultural, and medical use, and cement (per the interpretation of the government on its news website, the obligations fall on the producers or importers of the products using the packaging, and not the producers of the packaging);
  • Batteries, lubricating oil for engines, and tires;
  • Electrical and electronic products (e.g., air conditioners, laptops, TVs); and
  • Transport vehicles (e.g., motorbikes, cars used to transport people and goods).

Outlook

Producers and importers of the aforementioned types of packaging and products should note the effective date of the recycling obligation and prepare to comply with the New EPR Regulations.

The recycling obligations under the New EPR Regulations are expected to be a matter which will be factored into the price of M&A transactions. In addition, the New EPR Regulations would make recycling projects one of the more attractive targets for M&A transactions in the near future.

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