Nearly three months after Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (“Decree 110”) entered into force, Vietnam’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regime has entered its implementation phase. As businesses move from understanding the new framework to operational compliance, attention is shifting from legislative reform to the practical challenges of implementation. Against this backdrop, broader amendments to Vietnam’s environmental legislation currently under consideration suggest that environmental compliance will continue to evolve in the coming years.
To facilitate this transition, Decree 110, issued on 1 April 2026 and effective from 25 May 2026, consolidates and clarifies Vietnam’s EPR framework, building upon the EPR framework established under the Law on Environmental Protection (LEP) 2020 and its implementing regulations. Rather than introducing a new obligation, Decree 110 completes the existing legal framework by clarifying the mechanism for managing and disbursing funds collected to support waste collection, recycling, and treatment activities – an area that had remained underdeveloped in earlier regulations. Decree 110 also revises compliance timelines: businesses may now discharge their financial contribution obligations by 31 March of the following year, rather than within the same calendar year as previously required, with declarations due on the national EPR system before 1 April and payment to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund due before 20 April each year.
For many businesses, the first practical question raised by Decree 110 is no longer whether EPR applies in principle, but how it applies to a specific product line. Under Article 54 of LEP 2020 and its detailed implementation across Chapter II of Decree 110, mandatory recycling obligations apply to products and packaging listed under Appendix I of Decree 110. Importantly, Decree 110 provides clarification for complex supply chains: where a product is manufactured under an ordering arrangement, the ordering party – not the contract manufacturer – bears responsibility for EPR compliance. Decree 110 further clarifies that subsidiaries or independent accounting branches may legally authorise their parent company to fulfill EPR obligations on their behalf. For businesses operating through OEM arrangements, private-label distribution or multi-entity corporate structures, this allocation of responsibility should be clearly documented rather than assumed. This is particularly important where supply chains involve multiple related entities or contract manufacturers.
Pursuant to Article 54 of the LEP 2020 and detailed in Chapter II of Decree 110, Vietnam’s EPR framework provides multiple compliance pathways rather than prescribing a single method of compliance: producers and importers may recycle or treat waste directly, cooperate with an authorised recycling organisation, or make a financial contribution to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund in respect of the products and packaging they place on the market. Each option carries distinct operational and cost implications. For businesses opting out of physical recycling, the financial contribution route creates a recurring, scalable compliance cost calculated under the statutory formulas in Appendix II of Decree 110, which remains subject to periodic state adjustment (every three years for recycling support rates and every five years for waste treatment contributions). Selecting among these options is accordingly less a matter of legal compliance in isolation than a recurring commercial decision – one that increasingly warrants coordination between legal, finance, and operational functions rather than a one-off determination made at the point of market entry.
Beyond legal compliance, the choice of implementation pathway may also affect budgeting, procurement strategies and supplier negotiations. Companies importing multiple product categories may find that different compliance models are commercially appropriate for different product lines, making early planning increasingly important.
The annual reporting and payment cycle under Decree 110 requires structured coordination across environmental, health and safety, operational, and finance functions, with particular attention to the timely availability of accurate underlying data. In practice, this means businesses can no longer treat EPR as a matter handled solely by an external consultant at year-end. It increasingly touches supplier contracts (to obtain accurate packaging and product-volume data from upstream vendors), internal reporting systems (to track the mandatory annual declaration deadline of 1 April on the National EPR Information System and the statutory contribution payment deadline of 20 April to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund), and, for many companies, broader ESG and corporate governance reporting lines. Businesses that integrate these statutory milestones into existing compliance calendars are likely to reduce administrative burdens and minimise the risk of missed reporting deadlines.
Decree 110 is unlikely to be the final word on EPR. Following the 3rd Plenum of the 14th Central Committee, which issued Conclusion No. 75-KL/TW on 28 July 2026 on environmental protection and climate change adaptation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment has been consulting on amendments to the Law on Environmental Protection itself – a process that has identified the continued implementation of the EPR framework as one of several issues requiring further consideration. Delegates involved in this process have also pointed to overlapping administrative procedures and inconsistent delegation of authority as practical bottlenecks under the current framework. For businesses, this suggests that Decree 110 should be read as one stage in an ongoing process rather than a settled endpoint, with further guidance and adjustment likely as the broader legislative review progresses.
In conclusion, Vietnam’s EPR regime has now moved beyond legislative design and into day-to-day implementation. For producers and importers, the more pressing challenge is no longer interpreting the legal text of Decree 110, but embedding its product classification rules, compliance-model choices, and annual reporting cycle into ordinary business operations. With broader amendments to the Law on Environmental Protection already under consultation, the regulatory landscape is likely to keep evolving. Businesses that proactively review their EPR compliance systems, rather than waiting until the next reporting cycle, will be better positioned to adapt as the regulatory framework continues to evolve.
