The shift towards services, digital platforms, and value-added production, which is an evolving nature of global trade, is opening new pathways for women to participate and thrive. These trends reduce traditional barriers, allowing women entrepreneurs and workers greater opportunity to connect with international networks, export products, and gain new skills through technology-driven trade.

Collective efforts by governments and international organizations are crucial to sustaining this progress. Initiatives like gender-responsive trade policies, training programs, and inclusive business partnerships empower women to scale their enterprises and improve livelihoods. By aligning trade policies with gender equality goals, countries can ensure that trade benefits are widely shared, transforming women’s potential into a driving force for sustainable growth and inclusive prosperity.

The impact of trade on women in their different roles

Though challenges such as job displacement persist, and a lack of sex-disaggregated data has hindered research, new analysis confirms trade benefits women in several ways:

First, firms that engage in international trade tend to employ more women. In developing countries, women account for about 33% of the workforce in trading companies, compared with only 24% in non-exporting firms. In Viet Nam, exporting enterprises employ 50% or more female workers, contributing to the creation of over 5 million jobs for women – a figure that highlights the significant role of trade in expanding equal employment opportunities.

Average female labor share is higher for manufacturing firms integrated into global trade

Source: Rocha and Winkler 2019, based on World Bank Enterprise Surveys. 

Note: The graph shows weighted averages by firm type, using the number of permanent workers as weights. Exporters are firms with an export share (direct or indirect) of at least 10 percent of total sales. Importers are firms with an imported input share of at least 10 percent of total inputs. GVC (global value chain) participants are firms that are classified as both exporters and importers. FDI (foreign direct investment) refers to firms with a foreign ownership share of at least 10 percent.

Moreover, trade helps raise women’s incomes and promote gender economic equality. Doubling manufacturing exports increases women’s wage share in that sector by an average of 5.8 percentage points. At the regional level, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is projected to raise the incomes of skilled female workers by 4.0% by 2035, compared to 3.2% for men, demonstrating trade’s potential to narrow wage gaps.

Beyond income gains, trade also creates better and more stable jobs for women. In export-oriented sectors, the share of women working informally has fallen from 20% to 13% – a 7-percentage-point decline for women, higher than the 5-point drop for men. This shows that trade integration can open pathways to more formal, secure, and protected employment for women.

Women are less likely to be in informal jobs if they work in trade-integrated sectors

Finally, trade openness enhances women’s economic welfare. Removing import tariffs raises the real income of female-headed households in more than three-quarters of the countries studied, with gains reaching up to 2.5%. This demonstrates that trade not only drives economic growth but also ensures women share more equitably in the benefits of globalization, making it a key engine for sustainable development and gender equality.

How constraints and opportunities shape women’s roles in trade

Women face significant constraints that limit their ability to trade and benefit from it. These barriers include challenges at the border (like higher trading costs and discrimination) and crucial “beyond-the-border” issues. Key constraints include limited access to education, which concentrates female employment in low-skill sectors, and difficulty obtaining finance for trade. Gender bias for domestic tasks also restricts women’s mobility and flexibility.

Three major trends present new opportunities for women to increase their presence in 21st-century trade:

• Servicification: The growing role of services in the global economy increases female labor force participation because services generally employ a higher share of women than agriculture or manufacturing.
• Global Value Chains (GVCs): The fragmentation of production has raised demand for female skills (e.g., in textiles). It also connects MSMEs (many women-owned) to foreign markets via supply chains.
• Digital Technologies: Digitalization can significantly magnify women’s gains by facilitating their access to finance and education, increasing demand for women’s skills, and removing trade barriers and mobility constraints. 

Policy responses to promote women’s benefits from trade

Enhancing women’s participation in and benefits from trade requires removing specific trade barriers, such as lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers, and improving access to trade finance. Maintaining a predictable trading environment, underpinned by World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, is also beneficial. Ongoing WTO initiatives related to services, e-commerce, and small enterprises could further empower women in the global economy.

However, trade policies alone are insufficient; complementary policies are essential to improve women’s capacity by enhancing their access to education, financial resources, digital technologies, and infrastructure. Well-targeted labor market adjustment policies are also needed to help women maximize benefits and mitigate risks associated with trade openness.

Ultimately, well-designed strategies to help women benefit from trade depend heavily on the availability of relevant gender-related data. The current lack of sex-disaggregated data has hindered policymakers’ ability to identify trade policy’s differential impacts on men and women. Both the World Bank and the WTO are now leading efforts to address these data shortcomings to enable future research and policy making focused on trade’s impact on gender equality.

Reference: World Bank and World Trade Organization (2020) Women and Trade: The Role of Trade in Promoting Gender Equality. Washing, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/publication/women-and-trade-the-role-of-trade-in-promoting-womens-equality 

]]> https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/research/women-and-trade-the-role-of-trade-in-promoting-gender-equality/feed/ 0 https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/research/from-linear-trade-to-circular-value-chains-pathways-for-vietnams-sustainable-packaging-exports/ https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/research/from-linear-trade-to-circular-value-chains-pathways-for-vietnams-sustainable-packaging-exports/#respond Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:15:13 +0000 https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/?p=3755

Over the past five years, sustainable packaging has moved from a peripheral branding choice to a central condition for access to high-value export markets. What distinguishes the current phase is the way circularity—design for recyclability, recycled content, reuse systems, and end-of-life responsibility—has been embedded into market-entry rules, procurement standards, and buyer specifications along international supply chains. In effect, circular performance has become a non-tariff trade requirement: exporters that cannot document recyclability and material recovery increasingly face exclusion or price discounts in the European Union (EU), Japan, and Korea (European Commission, 2024; WTO, 2023). This shift is catalyzed by two reinforcing forces: a rapid tightening of packaging legislation in destination markets, and a reorganization of global plastics flows following Asia’s resource-circulation policies and China’s earlier waste-import bans (OECD, 2025).

  Figure 1. Global sustainable packaging market size, 2018–2030 (USD billion)
Source: Grand View Research (2024)

European regulatory leadership and spillovers to trade. The EU’s proposed Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) sets the tone for global circular trade in packaging by requiring that all packaging placed on the EU market be recyclable by 2030, with design-for-recyclability criteria, labeling harmonization, and escalating recycled-content targets in plastics (European Commission, 2024; Reuters, 2024a, 2024b). In parallel, the Single-Use Plastics framework mandates 25% recycled content in PET beverage bottles by 2025 and 30% across plastic beverage bottles by 2030, alongside high collection targets supported by deposit-return systems (European Commission, 2024). These rules work in tandem with the broader Green Deal agenda and carbon measures, effectively internalizing life-cycle externalities into market access. For non-EU exporters, compliance has migrated from “nice to have” to “license to operate.” The immediate trade implications are threefold: (i) a premium for converters that can source certified recycled resins (especially rPET and rHDPE) and document traceability; (ii) demand growth for recyclable mono-materials, fiber-based solutions, and compostable applications with robust standards; and (iii) a squeeze on multi-layer, hard-to-recycle laminates without credible design changes (European Commission, 2024; WTO, 2023).

Asia’s resource-circulation turn and buyer pull: On the demand side, global brands (food, beverage, personal care) increasingly embed circular KPIs into supplier contracts, cascading EU-style requirements through Asia-based value chains. On the policy side, producer-responsibility regimes in Japan and Korea push domestic markets toward closed-loop systems and high-quality recycling, indirectly shaping import specifications for packaging and components (Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2021; Korea Environment Corporation, n.d.). Japan’s Plastic Resource Circulation Act (effective 2022) operationalizes “3R+Renewable” across the plastic life cycle, incentivizing design for recyclability and certified recycled inputs (Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2021; JCPRA, 2023). Korea’s long-standing EPR framework, reinforced by the Fundamental Act of Resource Circulation, sets mandatory recycling obligations for packaging materials and imposes charges for non-compliance (Korea Environment Corporation, n.d.; ERIA/RKC-MPD, n.d.). These measures raise the baseline expectations for exporters selling into advanced Asian markets, accelerating convergence toward EU-style circularity.

Figure 2. Potentials of the sustainable packaging market (USD billion)
Source: Towardpackaging (2024)

Global supply reconfiguration: recycled feedstocks and secondary materials trade. The OECD’s Regional Plastics Outlook shows that effective recycling rates in East and Southeast Asia have been improving (albeit from a low base), with a strong policy push for quality-controlled recycling and reduced leakage (OECD, 2025). As recycled content mandates tighten in destination markets, cross-border trade in secondary materials (e.g., rPET flakes, rHDPE pellets, de-inked fiber) gains strategic importance. However, “circular trade” will only scale when exporters can prove quality, safety, and traceability of recycled inputs—areas where harmonized standards and credible certification are still consolidating (WTO, 2023; OECD, 2022). At the same time, UNCTAD notes a complementary surge of innovation and trade in plastic substitutes—from fiber-based and compostable packaging to seaweed-derived biopolymers—opening parallel export niches but also posing challenges of performance, infrastructure compatibility, and genuine end-of-life benefits (UNCTAD, 2025).

Market trajectories and product-system shifts. Industry trackers indicate a robust growth path for sustainable packaging, driven by regulation-induced demand and retailer commitments. While estimates vary by methodology, multiple analyses concur on a multi-hundred-billion-dollar market by 2030; the common denominator is faster growth for recyclable mono-material solutions, rPET/rHDPE-based rigid packaging, and fiber-based formats displacing mixed laminates in regulated categories (Grand View Research, 2024; Transparency Market Research, 2022). Yet circularity is not only a material story; it is increasingly a system story: deposit-return for beverage containers, reusable transport packaging in e-commerce logistics, and standardized eco-modulation of EPR fees that reward design improvements. Exporters that plug into these systems—by offering DRS-ready bottles, reuse-compatible transit packaging, digitally traceable labels, or certified recycled content—can command better acceptance and margins in regulated markets (European Commission, 2024; WTO, 2023).

Implications for latecomer exporters. For developing-economy producers, the opportunity lies in moving from linear conversion to circular solutions. Converters that previously competed on low-cost lamination now face a step-change toward design for disassembly, mono-material films, water-based inks, and food-grade recycled inputs. Documentation (recyclability protocols, chain-of-custody for r-materials), conformity assessment, and alignment with destination-market labeling are becoming as critical as price and lead time. Countries that enable exporters with testing capacity, recognized certification, and access to recycled feedstocks (food-grade rPET, deodorized rHDPE, high-yield reclaimed fiber) will gain share in the sustainable packaging export segment (OECD, 2022; OECD, 2025). Conversely, jurisdictions that remain tied to multi-material laminates without credible end-of-life pathways risk rising compliance costs, retailer delistings, or outright market loss as PPWR-style rules crystallize (European Commission, 2024; Reuters, 2024a, 2024b).

Finally, the trade governance layer is evolving to support this transition. Within the WTO’s TESSD track, members are mapping ways to reduce barriers on environmental goods and improve transparency around circular standards, eco-labeling, and conformity assessment—precisely the friction points that now determine whether a “green” package is tradable at scale (WTO, 2023). For exporters in Asia, alignment with EU/Japan/Korea protocols, mutual recognition of testing, and participation in regional resource-circulation frameworks are becoming prerequisites to compete in a world where circular performance is inseparable from trade performance (ASEAN Secretariat, 2021; OECD, 2022).

2. Vietnam’s Current Situation: Transitioning toward Sustainable Packaging Exports

2.1 Industry Overview

Vietnam’s packaging industry has expanded rapidly over the last decade, mirroring the country’s deeper integration into global manufacturing value chains. According to the Vietnam Packaging Association (VPA, 2024), the sector reached an estimated USD 17 billion in 2024, growing at an average CAGR of 12–14 percent since 2015. Around 14 000 enterprises operate nationwide—mostly small and medium-sized converters (≈ 85 percent domestic, 15 percent FDI).
Exports of packaging materials and products, particularly plastic films, paper cartons, and corrugated boxes, reached USD 8.8 billion in 2022, up from USD 5.1 billion in 2015 (Vietnam Briefing, 2024).

The sector remains dominated by plastics. Between January and July 2025, Vietnam imported 5.55 million tons of virgin plastic resin valued at USD 7.3 billion—an increase of 18.8 percent in volume and 11.6 percent in value year-on-year (B-Company Japan, 2025).
Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) comprise over 80 percent of resin consumption, while domestic resin production covers only about 20 percent of demand (OECD, 2025). The paper-packaging segment has also grown strongly, driven by e-commerce and export logistics: national output reached 4.5 million tons in 2023, worth about USD 3.5 billion (Paper Vietnam, 2024).

Despite the growth, the overall system remains linear—“make-use-dispose.” Only 15–20 percent of post-consumer packaging waste is formally recovered for recycling, and nearly all collection depends on the informal sector (MONRE, 2024). Of roughly 3 500 plastic-recycling facilities, only ≈ 300 meet basic environmental or food-grade standards (World Bank, 2023).
As a result, Vietnam continues to export low-value, single-use packaging while importing higher-value recycled resins to satisfy EU and Japanese buyers’ circular-content requirements (UNIDO, 2023).

Table 1. Market size of Vietnam’s packaging industry by material (2015–2025)

(Data source: VPA 2024; Vietnam Briefing 2024)

2.2 Policy and Institutional Framework

Vietnam’s shift toward circular packaging has been policy-driven only since 2020 but is accelerating through a mix of environmental, industrial, and trade instruments.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): The 2020 Law on Environmental Protection (LEP) and Decree No. 08/2022/NĐ-CP established Vietnam’s first binding EPR system, operational from January 2024. Producers and importers of packaging must either (i) organize collection/recycling of a mandated proportion of packaging waste or (ii) pay a recycling fee into the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund (VEPF). Targets are 22 percent (plastics) and 25 percent (paper) by 2025, rising to 45 and 50 percent respectively by 2030 (MONRE, 2024). Eco-modulated fees incentivize recyclable designs and penalize multi-layer laminates, consistent with OECD best practice (OECD, 2025). Five pilot Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) were registered under VEPF supervision by mid-2025 (VEPF, 2025).

Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP 2022): Issued under Decision 687/QĐ-TTg, the CEAP identifies packaging and plastics as priority sectors for pilot circular projects. It promotes reverse-logistics infrastructure and industrial symbiosis zones where waste from one plant becomes raw material for another. The UNDP–MONRE Circular Economy Hub Vietnam (2023) catalogs ongoing pilots such as Tetra Pak’s beverage-carton recycling line in Binh Duong and Duy Tân’s bottle-to-bottle project in Ho Chi Minh City (UNDP, 2023).

National Green Growth Strategy (2021–2030): Decision 1658/QĐ-TTg sets three packaging-related targets: (1) cut virgin-plastic use by 30 percent by 2030;
(2) collect and recycle 85 percent of packaging waste; and (3) ensure 40 percent of export products meet environmental certification (MPI, 2023). It also mandates green public procurement and credit lines through the Vietnam Development Bank for eco-industrial projects.

Trade and FTAs: Vietnam’s new-generation FTAs reinforce these domestic reforms. The EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) includes Chapter 13 (Trade and Sustainable Development) promoting eco-labeling, waste management, and low-carbon goods (European Commission, 2023). Similarly, the CPTPP and UKVFTA contain environmental cooperation clauses, encouraging alignment with international circular-trade standards. This gives Vietnamese exporters a framework to meet EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR 2024) and Japan’s Plastic Resource Circulation Act (2022) requirements (OECD, 2025).
However, institutional fragmentation persists: MONRE manages EPR; MOIT oversees industrial policy; MARD handles paper and biomass; and Customs lacks traceability systems to verify recycled content. A draft National Circular Economy Decree (2025) seeks to harmonize these mandates (MONRE, 2025).

2.3 Value Chain Mapping

Vietnam’s packaging value chain can be divided into four stages—inputs, processing, distribution/export, and post-consumer recovery—each revealing points where circular interventions can add value.

Inputs: Feedstock supply is heavily import-dependent. In 2024, resin imports exceeded USD 10 billion, primarily PET, PP, and PE (General Department of Customs, 2024). Domestic production of bioplastics remains limited; An Phát Bioplastics’ PLA/PHA facility in Hai Phong (20 000 tons/year) covers less than 1 percent of national demand (An Phát Holdings, 2024).
Local recycled-resin capacity reached ~250 000 tons/year in 2025, meeting only 8 percent of domestic consumption (OECD, 2025).

Processing: Technology heterogeneity defines the sector. Large FDI plants (Tetra Pak, SCG Packaging, JSP Vietnam) apply modern printing and lamination technologies, whereas ≈ 80 percent of SMEs use second-hand equipment. Average labor productivity is USD 32 000/employee/year, about half of Thailand’s (OECD, 2025). Only ≈ 10 percent of firms possess ISO 14001 or BSCI certification, limiting access to high-end export markets (VPA, 2024).

Distribution and Exports: Packaging exports rose 72 percent between 2015 and 2022 (VPA, 2024). The United States, Japan, and the EU remain top buyers. Yet just 10 percent of exported packaging contains verified recycled content (World Bank, 2023). In contrast, Thailand and Malaysia already exceed 30 percent due to established rPET/rHDPE supply chains.

Post-consumer Recovery and Recycling: Recycling rates are modest: PET/HDPE/PP ≈ 32–45 percent (Eunomia, 2022). Informal collectors (≈ 400 000 nationwide) remain the backbone of recovery (World Bank, 2023). New EPR PROs seek to formalize this network and finance collection centers through fee revenues. The target is to build five regional reverse-logistics hubs by 2030 (MONRE, 2025).

Table 2. Vietnam Packaging Value Chain – Circular Transition Leverage Points

(Source: Author’s compilation based on VPA 2024, MONRE 2024, World Bank 2023)

2.4 Challenges and Transition Dynamics

Governance fragmentation: Circular economy governance remains siloed. MONRE enforces EPR but lacks integration with trade authorities to track recycled-content exports. MOIT’s green-industry program focuses on energy efficiency rather than material circularity. Provincial implementation varies—Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong have advanced pilots, while northern provinces lag (MONRE, 2024). A planned National Circular Economy Council (2026) aims to coordinate these efforts (VCCI, 2025).

Infrastructure and technology gaps: Vietnam has only four food-grade rPET plants (total capacity < 50 000 tons/year) compared to Thailand’s 200 000 tons (OECD, 2025). Testing labs for migration and toxicity are scarce; exporters must outsource certification to foreign labs, raising costs by 10–15 percent per shipment (European Commission, 2024). Bioplastic manufacturing remains limited to An Phat and a few start-ups in Binh Duong and Hai Phong.

Finance and SME readiness: For SMEs, the cost of adopting eco-design and traceability systems equals 10–15 percent of annual revenues (VPA, 2024). Only three domestic banks offer green credit lines (MPI, 2023). International initiatives like the World Bank’s Green Innovation Grant and UNIDO’s Eco-Packaging for SMEs Vietnam (2023–2025) have supported just 40 firms nationwide. Scaling finance is critical to extend benefits to thousands of converters outside industrial zones.

Market and regulatory pressures: Destination-market requirements (EU PPWR, Japan PRC Act) will tighten by 2030, making non-recyclable exports commercially unviable. Under EVFTA rules, eco-labeling and life-cycle information disclosure are becoming mandatory for suppliers to EU buyers. Without upgraded traceability and EPR compliance, Vietnamese exporters risk margin erosion or market loss (OECD, 2025). Conversely, firms that pivot early toward circular solutions could differentiate themselves in premium markets.

Social and labour dimensions: The informal recycling sector provides livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of workers, mainly women and migrants. Formalizing this workforce through PROs and municipal cooperatives is essential to avoid social disruption while raising collection efficiency (World Bank, 2023). Pilot programs in Ho Chi Minh City show that formal contracts with waste-picker groups increase collection rates by 30 percent and reduce leakage (OECD, 2025).

Figure 3. Packaging Value Chain and Circular Transition in Vietnam

(Source: Author based on VPA 2024; MONRE 2024; World Bank 2023.)

Vietnam’s packaging industry is transitioning from a volume-driven, export-assembly model to an innovation-driven, circular one. Policy reforms—especially EPR, CEAP, and green FTAs—lay a foundation for integration into global circular value chains. Yet implementation gaps in infrastructure, finance, and institutional coordination persist. If addressed through targeted investment, regulatory alignment, and public–private partnerships, Vietnam could position itself as a regional hub for sustainable packaging exports by 2030. The transition offers economic upgrading opportunities and supports Vietnam’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

3. Policy Implications

Vietnam’s path from a linear, resource-intensive packaging model toward a circular export system depends on whether its trade, industrial, and environmental policies can evolve in sync. The challenge lies less in policy intent—already visible through the Law on Environmental Protection 2020, the Circular Economy Action Plan 2022, and the Green Growth Strategy 2030—than in execution, financing, and international alignment. To remain competitive as global markets tighten recyclability and carbon-content standards, Vietnam must strengthen coordination, investment, and trade diplomacy around circular value chains.

First, coherence across ministries is essential. Responsibilities for extended producer responsibility (EPR), industrial upgrading, and export promotion remain fragmented among MONRE, MOIT, and MPI, delaying implementation. Establishing a National Circular Economy Council to coordinate trade and environment strategies would accelerate progress. Within it, a Circular Trade Unit could track recycled-content flows, manage certification databases, and liaise with customs to integrate circular metrics into export statistics—functions already proven effective in Japan’s and the EU’s circular-governance systems (European Commission, 2024; JCPRA, 2023).

Second, infrastructure and finance form the backbone of circular competitiveness. Recycling capacity in Vietnam—around 250 000 tons of rPET/rHDPE annually—covers less than 10 percent of national demand (OECD, 2025). Expanding food-grade recycling, reverse-logistics hubs, and industrial symbiosis parks would reduce import dependence and leakage. Revenues from the new EPR system could seed a Green Transformation Fund for Packaging, co-financing equipment upgrades, digital traceability tools, and eco-design R&D. Public procurement and export-credit schemes should also privilege suppliers using verified recycled content, translating environmental behavior into market advantage.

Third, international cooperation can transform compliance into opportunity. Through the EU–Vietnam FTA and ASEAN’s Circular Economy Framework, Vietnam can negotiate mutual recognition of eco-labels and recycled-content certificates, cutting testing costs and border delays. Participation in regional and plurilateral initiatives such as DEPA or IPEF would enable the country to pilot digital product passports and cross-border waste-traceability platforms. Embedding such standards into customs procedures would make “circular trade facilitation” a competitive asset rather than an administrative burden.

A further priority is enabling small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which constitute most packaging converters yet lack capital for eco-innovation. Expanding green-credit lines under the State Bank’s sustainability framework and introducing partial-guarantee mechanisms could unlock private investment. Technical-training programs, jointly developed by MOIT, VCCI, and UNIDO, should focus on eco-design, material substitution, and environmental reporting. Simultaneously, the informal waste-collection sector—about 400 000 workers, predominantly women—must be integrated into EPR implementation through formal contracts with Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs). International evidence suggests that such inclusion improves collection rates by 30 percent while stabilizing incomes (World Bank, 2023).

Finally, transparency and standards are critical for credibility in export markets. Developing national recyclability and compostability standards (TCVN series) harmonized with the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 2024 would help local producers demonstrate compliance. A QR-based “Packaging Passport” linked to customs and EPR databases could trace material origin and recycling performance, aligning with upcoming global digital-passport regimes.

If implemented cohesively, these reforms could lift Vietnam’s packaging-recycling rate to 45–50 percent and boost circular-export revenues beyond USD 25 billion by 2030, while formalizing thousands of jobs and reducing material imports. More importantly, they would reposition Vietnam from a cost-driven converter to a regional leader in sustainable-packaging trade, supplying circular solutions—not waste—to the global market.

References

1. An Phát Holdings. (2024). Corporate sustainability report: Bioplastics development in Viet Nam. Hai Phong: An Phát Holdings.
   Retrieved from https://www.anphatholdings.com
2. ASEAN Secretariat. (2021). ASEAN Circular Economy Framework. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from https://asean.org/our-communities/economic-community/asean-circular-economy-framework
3. ASEAN Secretariat. (2021). ASEAN Circular Economy Framework. Jakarta: ASEAN.
   European Commission. (2024). Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Brussels: Publications Office of the EU.
   Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association (JCPRA). (2023). Plastic Resource Circulation in Japan. Tokyo: JCPRA.
4. Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI). (2023). National Green Growth Strategy 2021–2030. Hanoi: MPI.
5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia. Paris: OECD Publishing.
6. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2023). Eco-Packaging for SMEs Vietnam Pilot Project. Vienna: UNIDO.
7. Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). (2025). Proposal for National Circular Economy Council. Hanoi: VCCI.
8. World Bank. (2023). Toward a Circular Economy in Vietnam: Opportunities for a Green Recovery. Washington, DC: World Bank.
9. B-Company Japan. (2025). Vietnam’s plastic resin market – Industry landscape and foreign investment opportunities. Tokyo: B-Company Japan.
   Retrieved from https://b-company.jp/vietnams-plastic-resin-market-industry-landscape-and-foreign-investment-opportunities
10. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
    Retrieved from https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/completing-the-picture
11. Eunomia Research & Consulting. (2022). Vietnam recycling rate and cost report 2022. Bristol, UK: Eunomia. Retrieved from https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/vietnam-recycling-rate
12. European Commission. (2023). EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, Chapter 13: Trade and Sustainable Development. Brussels: European Union.
    Retrieved from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/vietnam_en
13. European Commission. (2023). European Green Deal and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
14. European Commission. (2024). Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/packaging-waste_en
15. General Department of Customs (Vietnam). (2024). Statistical yearbook of import–export activities 2023. Hanoi: Vietnam Customs.
16. Gereffi, G. (2018). Global value chains and development: Redefining the contours of 21st-century capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108448151
17. Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association (JCPRA). (2023). Plastic Resource Circulation in Japan – Annual Report 2023. Tokyo: JCPRA.
    Retrieved from https://www.jcpra.or.jp/english
18. Japan Ministry of the Environment. (2021). Act on Promotion of Resource Circulation for Plastics (Plastic Resource Circulation Act, No. 60 of 2021). Tokyo: Government of Japan.
    Retrieved from https://www.env.go.jp/en/
19. Korea Environment Corporation. (n.d.). Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) System in Korea. Seoul: Ministry of Environment (MOE).
    Retrieved from https://www.keco.or.kr/en/
20. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE). (2024). Report on EPR implementation progress in packaging. Hanoi: MONRE.
    Retrieved from https://en.monre.gov.vn/
21. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE). (2025). Draft National Circular Economy Decree. Hanoi: MONRE.
22. Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI). (2023). National Green Growth Strategy 2021–2030. Hanoi: MPI.
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2022). Trade and circular economy: Practices and lessons learned from Asia and the Pacific. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/aa1edf0e-en
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Regional plastics outlook for Southeast and East Asia. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/publications/regional-plastics-outlook-for-southeast-and-east-asia-5a8ff43c-en.htm
25. Paper Vietnam Conference. (2024). Vietnam paper packaging market: Average potential growth rate of 9.73 % per year. Retrieved from https://paper-vietnam.com/vietnam-paper-packaging-market-average-potential-growth-rate-of-9-73-year
26. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2023). Circular economy and trade: Opportunities for developing countries. Geneva: United Nations.
    Retrieved from https://unctad.org/publication/circular-economy-and-trade
27. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2023). Eco-Packaging for SMEs Vietnam Pilot Project – Progress Report. Vienna: UNIDO.
28. Vietnam Briefing. (2024). Vietnam’s packaging industry: Investment outlook and sustainability trends 2024. Hanoi: Dezan Shira & Associates. Retrieved from https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-packaging-industry-investment-outlook.html
29. Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). (2025). Proposal for establishing a National Circular Economy Council. Hanoi: VCCI.
30. Vietnam Packaging Association (VPA). (2024). Industry report on sustainable packaging exports 2024. Hanoi: VPA.
31. World Bank. (2023). Toward a circular economy in Vietnam: Opportunities for a green recovery. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099450323010622182/p17701308008e809090e90509b8b0e7a90c
32. World Trade Organization (WTO). (2023). Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD) – Annual Report 2023. Geneva: WTO. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tessd_e.htm

The global energy transition demands a rapid rollout of renewable technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, electric batteries, and electric vehicles, alongside major upgrades to existing power grids. At the same time, the digital transformation is reshaping economies through the expansion of consumer electronics, the digitalization of everyday life, and the adoption of Industry 4.0 production methods, including industrial robotics and additive manufacturing. These shifts are supported by large-scale growth in data storage and connectivity. Together, they are driving a surge in demand for the minerals and metals that underpin these technologies, requiring an unprecedented increase in the extraction, processing, and recycling of so-called “critical minerals” – the metals essential for green, digital, and advanced manufacturing, even though the term itself is not yet universally defined or adopted.

To date, there is no universally accepted definition or global list of critical minerals. What counts as “critical” differs across countries and regions and depends, among other factors, on their specific position in global supply chains at a given point in time. In practice, minerals and metals are typically classified as critical or strategic based on two main considerations.

First, minerals and metals are often deemed critical when they are significant direct inputs into key current or planned industrial activities but are not available, or are only minimally available, from domestic sources (IGF, 2023). In such cases, countries face high import dependence, particularly when they do not produce the mineral or metal at all. A central element of this definition is supply-chain vulnerability, including exposure to geopolitical, commercial, or logistical risks that could disrupt access. This approach is widely adopted by the European Union, the United States, Japan, and other advanced economies, where the primary policy focus is on securing supply and mitigating disruption risks.

Second, minerals and metals may be considered critical when they are domestically abundant and a country has a strategic interest in leveraging its dominant resource position to gain competitive advantage or to foster domestic industrial development and move up global value chains. In this context, producer countries frequently use terms such as “strategic minerals” or “strategic assets” to emphasize their role as key suppliers in global supply chains. Here, the central policy objective is not just security of supply, but value capture, i.e., maximizing economic returns and industrial upgrading from their resource endowments (IGF, 2023). A growing number of economies including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada have adopted dedicated critical minerals strategies that combine clear lists of strategic materials, substantial public financing, and explicit targets for domestic mining, processing and recycling. While import-dependent economies such as the US, EU and Japan prioritise security of supply and stockpiling, resource-rich countries like Australia and Canada focus on capturing more value through processing, refining and downstream manufacturing. Table 1 illustrates the comparison of policy approaches by resource-rich and import-dependent economies.

Table 1 Country’s strategy for critical mineral supply chain

Source: Author’s elaboration.

2. Vietnam and ASEAN in global critical mineral mapping

As ASEAN moves toward a much higher deployment of green energy technologies, critical minerals will inevitably become a cornerstone of this transition. Globally, the energy transition is projected to require around 6.5 billion tonnes of end-use materials between 2022 and 2050, with about 95% of this made up of steel, copper, and aluminium (International Energy Agency, 2025). In ASEAN, demand for critical minerals is expected to rise in parallel with this shift: the 7th Edition of the ASEAN Energy Outlook (AEO7) projects renewable energy capacity to reach about 41.5% of total power capacity, and the electric vehicle (EV) fleet to grow to roughly 2.5% by 2025. ASEAN countries have increasingly secured the most key minerals and metals needed for digital and energy transition in the future (Figure 1).

Figure 1. ASEAN’s production of key minerals and their use in energy, digital and defence technologies 

Source:  Reichl and Schatz, 2022; Bobba et al., 2023

Figure 3 Export of critical minerals of Vietnam and other ASEAN partners

Source: Authors calculation using ADB Trade in Critical Mineral 2023

From 2011–2022, ASEAN trade in critical minerals is clearly dominated by Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, which form the top tier of exporters with flows often above USD 5–10 billion and sharp spikes in several years (notably Thailand in 2016 and 2020, and Malaysia after 2020). The Philippines and Viet Nam sit in a second tier: both start from a much lower base but show a steady upward trend, with Viet Nam’s exports rising from only a few hundred million USD in the early 2010s to around the low billions by 2022.

For Viet Nam specifically, the graph suggests a gradual but persistent expansion rather than boom-and-bust cycles. Unlike Thailand and Indonesia, which experience large year-to-year swings, Viet Nam’s line is smoother, indicating more incremental integration into critical mineral value chains. At the same time, Viet Nam still lags far behind the regional leaders in scale, and only recently begins to close part of the gap with the Philippines. Overall, Viet Nam appears as a mid-sized but rapidly emerging exporter—no longer marginal like Cambodia or Myanmar, yet not yet a core hub comparable to Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand.

Figure 2 Vietnam rare-earth metal reserves

Vietnam has long been viewed as a “sleeping giant” in rare earth minerals: it holds the world’s second-largest rare earth reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, and already produces several minerals that other countries and regional groupings classify as critical. Yet these resources remain largely underdeveloped, as investment has been constrained by low global prices effectively set by China’s near-monopoly over production and processing, which have made large-scale projects in Vietnam commercially unattractive until recently. In 2022, Vietnam top exports of critical mineral includes Nickel, Fluorspar, Molybdenum, Zinc, Aluminium, unveiling untapped potential of rare-earth metals.

In recent years, growing concerns over supply security have prompted countries such as South Korea, Australia, and Canada to turn to Viet Nam in search of new sources of critical minerals. The United States and Viet Nam have also signed an agreement that includes a technical cooperation plan to better quantify Viet Nam’s reserves of key minerals, particularly rare earths, laying the groundwork for future investment and partnership in this sector. In fact, although Viet Nam has substantial supply potential, its processing and enrichment capacity remains limited, constraining the ability to deliver export-grade raw inputs. Strategic partnerships with high-demand importing countries are therefore essential to upgrade processing technology, improve product quality, and strengthen Viet Nam’s position in critical mineral supply chains.

Viet Nam’s Mineral Resources Strategy to 2020, with a Vision toward 2030, highlights both the sector’s potential and the importance of increasing domestic value addition. However, any definition of “critical” minerals must also reflect the country’s rapid economic growth and the rising material needs of its expanding manufacturing base. This requires systematic assessments of current and projected domestic industrial consumption, to ensure that supplies are secured not only for minerals produced within Viet Nam and ASEAN, but also for metals and minerals sourced from outside the region.

Vietnam has recently overhauled its mining framework through the 2024 Law on Geology and Minerals, which replaces the 2010 Minerals Law and takes effect from 1 July 2025 (VietnamNet, 2025). The new law integrates geology and mining under a single framework, introduces a four-tier classification of mineral resources that explicitly includes rare earth elements in the top (Group I) strategic category, and strengthens planning, licensing, and environmental safeguards to steer the sector toward more sustainable, efficient use of resources. Building on this, draft amendments under discussion go further for critical minerals: they propose to classify rare earths as a “special strategic resource”, centralise authority for exploration, mining and processing at the central government level, and ban the export of unprocessed rare earth ore. The amendments also envisage a dedicated National Strategy on Rare Earths, state-funded geological surveys, and stricter rules on reserves and deposit protection, signalling Hanoi’s intention to tighten control over critical minerals while promoting deeper processing and higher value capture at home.

3. Policy implications

In fact, although Viet Nam has substantial supply potential, its processing and enrichment capacity remains limited, constraining the ability to deliver export-grade raw inputs. Strategic partnerships with high demand importing countries are therefore essential to upgrade processing technology, improve product quality, and strengthen Viet Nam’s position in critical mineral supply chains.  There are several implications for Viet Nam’s next steps in enhancing participation in critical mineral value chains:

Prioritise processing and enrichment over raw ore exports

• Link exploration and mining licences to minimum domestic beneficiation and processing benchmarks (e.g. concentrate, oxides, or intermediate materials rather than unprocessed ore).
• Provide targeted fiscal incentives (tax holidays, accelerated depreciation, lower royalties) specifically for investments in processing plants, not just extraction.
• Pilot at least one or two “flagship” processing hubs for rare earths and other critical minerals, with shared infrastructure (power, water, logistics, testing labs) to reduce entry costs.

Leverage strategic partnerships to move up the value chain

• Use Viet Nam’s resource base to negotiate long-term offtake agreements with major importers (US, EU, Japan, Korea), conditioned on onshore processing, technology transfer, and local supplier development.
• Embed knowledge transfer clauses (training, joint R&D, internships) into investment contracts to build a domestic cadre of geologists, process engineers and materials scientists.

Link critical minerals to domestic industrial upgrading

• Integrate critical minerals into a broader industrial strategy for green and digital manufacturing (e.g. EV components, magnets, electronics, grid equipment), rather than treating mining as an isolated sector.
• Use public procurement (for renewables, grid equipment, defence, ICT) to create predictable domestic demand for intermediate products based on Vietnamese-processed minerals.
• Support SMEs and local suppliers in mining regions to participate in supply chains (maintenance services, logistics, engineering), increasing the domestic value captured per tonne of ore.

Improve data, planning, and institutional coordination

• Invest in geological surveys and resource mapping to improve reserve estimates, reduce information asymmetry with foreign investors, and support more strategic decision-making.
• Establish a high-level inter-ministerial taskforce on critical minerals (industry, trade, environment, finance, foreign affairs) to coordinate policies and avoid fragmented decision-making.
• Regularly update Viet Nam’s critical minerals list and strategy to reflect changing global technologies and domestic industrial needs, ensuring that “criticality” is tied to both export potential and domestic consumption.

Reference

Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources (2023) Critical Minerals Strategy 2023–2030 | Department of Industry Science and Resources. Available at: https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/critical-minerals-strategy-2023-2030 (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Bobba, S. et al. (2023) Critical raw materials for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU: a foresight study. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2873/58081.

European Commission (2023) European Critical Raw Materials Act. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/green-deal-industrial-plan/european-critical-raw-materials-act_en (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Government of Canada (2022) Minister Wilkinson Releases Canada’s $3.8-billion Critical Minerals Strategy to Seize Generational Opportunity for Clean, Inclusive Growth – Canada.ca. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/12/minister-wilkinson-releases-canadas-38-billion-critical-minerals-strategy-to-seize-generational-opportunity-for-clean-inclusive-growth.html (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

IGF (2023) ASEAN-IGF  Minerals Cooperation:  Scoping study on critical minerals supply  chains in ASEAN.

International Energy Agency (2025) Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 – Analysis – IEA. International Energy Agency (IEA). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2025 (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (2023) Stockpiling : Metals : Stockpiling | Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC). Available at: https://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/stockpiling/stockpiling_10_000001.html (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Phoumin, H. (2025) Indonesia’s Strategy toward Critical Minerals and Cooperation with the United States | The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). Available at: https://www.nbr.org/publication/indonesias-strategy-toward-critical-minerals-and-cooperation-with-the-united-states/ (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Reichl, C. and Schatz, M. (2022) World Mining Data 2022. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and Tourism.

U.S. Department of Energy (2023) “Critical Materials Assessment.” Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/2023-critical-materials-assessment.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior (2025) MINERAL COMMODITY  SUMMARIES 2025. U.S. Department of the Interior.

VietnamNet (2025) Vietnam proposes rare earths as a special strategic resource. Available at: https://vietnamnet.vn/en/vietnam-proposes-rare-earths-as-a-special-strategic-resource-2459260.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed: November 8, 2025).

Huong-Giang Nguyen (NUS Business School), Hieu-Long Hoang(ABL), Pham Thi Cam Anh (Foreign Trade University)

On Wednesday (November 5, 2025), the US Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the legality of President Donal Trump’s global tariff policy. The outcome of this case holds major implications for American consumers and businesses, the country’s economic stability, international relations, and the scope of presidential authority in the future.

If the tariffs are struck down, the US government bears the duty to pay back tens of billions of dollars to businesses that already paid the tariffs. If this outcome happens, the tariffs that are used by President Trump to negotiate new trade deals with other countries will also be eliminated. On the contrary, if the tariff policy is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will expand the presidential power and maintain one of the main policies of President Trump’s agenda.

Justices remain skeptical about President Trump’s tariff authority. The authority to impose taxes on citizens and tariffs on imported goods is given to the Congress by the Constitution, with a few exceptions in which allow the President to carry this authority during national emergencies. The central issue in Trump’s tariffs case is whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to unilaterally impose tariffs on any nation, at any rate, and for any duration, solely based on his own declaration of a national emergency situation. Trump is the first US President to invoke the IEEPA as a basis for imposing tariffs as exception to the power of the Congress, meaning this also the first case the US Supreme Court review a case concerning this authority of the President. The ruling is expected to be issued before the end of June 2026.

The Forum was held in a hybrid format, combining both on-site and online participation.

Delegates attending the event

Among the distinguished guests were Prof. Zhang Xiangchen, Deputy Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO); Dr. Pham Quang Huy, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of Viet Nam in Geneva; Mrs. Trinh Thi Thu Hien, Deputy Director of the Import-Export Department, Ministry of Industry and Trade; together with international experts, scholars, and business leaders.

Representing FTU were Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thu Huong, President of Foreign Trade University; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien, Vice President; and directors of the WTO Chair Programme, along with lecturers and students.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thu Huong delivers a speech at the event

In her opening remarks, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thu Huong, President of FTU, emphasized the importance of developing new growth drivers for international trade amid rapid global transformations. She noted that the Forum serves not only as an academic platform but also as a bridge connecting policymakers, researchers, and businesses in shaping a sustainable trade strategy for Vietnam. She added that the event carries special significance as it coincides with FTU’s 65th anniversary. “Foreign Trade University has long been a symbol of academic excellence, a pioneer in international education, and a source of pride in Vietnam’s integration journey,” she said.

Speaking at the Forum, Prof. Zhang Xiangchen, Deputy Director-General of the WTO, commended Vietnam’s progress over nearly two decades of WTO membership, highlighting the country’s dynamic trade performance and deepening global integration.

Mr. Zhang Xiangchen participates and delivers an opening speech online

He also stressed that in an era of rapid transformation, Vietnam should focus more on services trade, innovation, and green transition to strengthen its long-term competitiveness.

Representing the Permanent Mission of Viet Nam in Geneva, Dr. Pham Quang Huy praised FTU’s contributions to research, training, and policy dialogue in international trade and economic integration. 

Dr. Pham Quang Huy shares his remarks online

He emphasized that the university’s academic initiatives have supported Vietnam’s active engagement in the multilateral trading system and expressed hope that VFIT 2025 would bring valuable insights to both academia and policy practice.

Delivering the keynote address, Mrs. Trinh Thi Thu Hien, Deputy Director of the Import-Export Department under the Ministry of Industry and Trade, affirmed that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) remain key drivers of Vietnam’s trade growth. She noted that effective use of tariff preferences through rules of origin helps enhance the competitiveness of Vietnamese products, expand market access, and strengthen participation in global value chains.

Mrs. Trinh Thi Thu Hien delivers the keynote speech at the event

She affirmed that mastering and effectively applying the rules of origin will be the key to sustainable export growth in the time ahead.

During the roundtable session titled “Exploring New Growth Drivers: Shaping Vietnam’s International Trade Strategy” moderated by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trinh Thi Thu Huong, Chairholder of the WTO Chair Programme at FTU, experts from Vietnam and abroad discussed ways to foster new momentum for economic development.

Speakers participating in the roundtable discussion

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien, Vice President of FTU, highlighted four emerging growth drivers: Vietnam’s expansion of trade agreements, the rise of digital trade alongside Industry 4.0, the shift toward sustainable and green trade, and deeper participation in global value chains.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien shares his insights

He noted that agreements such as the CPTPP and EVFTA have been crucial to Vietnam’s growth and integration, while digital trade and advanced technologies are reshaping transparency and efficiency in global commerce.

From Taiwan, Prof. Tsai-fang Chen, WTO Co-chair for Chinese Taipei and Director of the Institute of Technology Law at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, emphasized that digital trade is becoming a vital force for global economic growth, reflected in innovations like digital signatures and cross-border e-contracts.

Prof. Tu Xinquan contributes his views

Sharing insights from China, Prof. Tu Xinquan, WTO Chairholder (Beijing) at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), noted that China’s export boom following its WTO accession was largely driven by foreign-invested enterprises, showcasing the benefits of openness. He added that amid growing competition for investment, China continues to advance high technology, enhance competitiveness, and pursue flexible policy responses to global changes.

Prof. Tsai Fang Chen offers his perspectives.

From the business perspective, Mr. Nguyen Hoai Nam, General Secretary of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), said the seafood industry is working to overcome challenges and leverage FTAs to expand export markets and strengthen competitiveness.

Mr. Nguyen Hoai Nam provides his input during the panel discussion

Following the plenary discussion, three parallel sessions attracted strong interest from experts and students:

• Session 1, themed “From Local Identity to National Value: The Breakthrough Path in International Trade,” was chaired by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thi Binh – Head of Outreach Pillar of the WTO Chair Programme at FTU. 
• Session 2, titled “Sustainable Trade Strategies in the Rising Era,” was led by Dr. Vu Kim Ngan – Co-Chairholder of the WTO Chair Programme at FTU. 
• Session 3, held in Vietnamese and focusing on “Shifting Advantages and Legal Challenges: Strategies for Global Supply Chain Participation in the AI and Semiconductor Era,” was chaired by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trinh Thi Thu Huong – Chairholder of the WTO Chair Programme at FTU.

Speakers share their insights during Discussion Session 2

Throughout the discussions, participants exchanged a wide range of perspectives on how Vietnam can capitalize on new growth drivers, including digital trade, sustainable trade, next-generation FTAs, and upgrading its position in global value chains.

The success of VFIT 2025 once again reaffirmed Foreign Trade University’s role as a leading center for research and policy dialogue in international trade. The Forum also served as a highlight in celebration of FTU’s 65th anniversary, marking the university’s enduring journey of innovation, integration, and academic excellence in Vietnam’s economic and trade education.

The event served as an opportunity for the Editorial Team to present to the academia, experts, representatives of state agencies, businesses, media agencies, and domestic and international organizations the core content of the Report, which embodies scientific and practical arguments on the new drivers of Vietnam’s international trade growth.

The Vietnam International Trade Report 2025 is built upon in-depth research and analysis of four new growth drivers, including: new-generation Free Trade Agreements – the institutional foundation for comprehensive integration; Digital Trade – the technological driver for breakthroughs and innovation; Sustainable Trade – the normative driver enabling Viet Nam to secure a stronger position in the global market; and Global Value Chains – the structural driver that elevates Viet Nam’s position in the global value chain.

The Report also proposes a comprehensive, synchronized, and multi-layered action strategy, emphasizing the need for close coordination among the “State as Constructors – Enterprises at the Core – Universities as Connectors.” This synergy is expected to help Viet Nam transform external drivers into endogenous advantages, foster sustainable international trade development, and enhance the country’s position in the global arena.

In her opening remarks at the Press Release Ceremony, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thu Huong, President of Foreign Trade University, emphasized: “The Vietnam International Trade Report 2025 was developed with the aim of identifying and providing in-depth analysis of four new cross-cutting growth drivers — emerging from global trends but materialized and coordinated at the national and business levels.”

She further noted that the Report puts forward a comprehensive, synchronized, and multi-layered action strategy, calling for strong collaboration among the State, the business community, and universities to transform external drivers into internal strengths, enabling Viet Nam to make breakthroughs and affirm its position as a high-value link in international trade in the new era.

Amid profound global shifts toward green transition, digital transformation, and supply chain restructuring, the Vietnam International Trade Report 2025 offers a fresh, comprehensive, and in-depth perspective on Viet Nam’s international trade development journey. The Report reflects the outcomes of rigorous academic collaboration, active engagement from the academia, state management agencies, and businesses. It also stands as a testament to Foreign Trade University’s pioneering role in connecting knowledge and policy for national development.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thu Huong expressed that this Report would serve as a valuable reference source for policymakers, businesses, scholars, and the media in strategic planning, market expansion, and enhancing national competitiveness in the new era.

At the event, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien, Vice President of Foreign Trade University, presented the key contents of the Vietnam International Trade Report 2025. The Report consists of five chapters, built on a well-structured framework and a strategic vision.

The introductory chapter provides an overview of the new growth drivers and highlights the importance of close coordination among the State as Constructors, Enterprises at the Core, and Universities as Connectors — the three pillars that form Viet Nam’s integration capacity.

The four subsequent chapters offer in-depth analysis of the core drivers for Viet Nam’s international trade in this era of national rising, including new-generation free trade agreements, digital trade, sustainable trade, and global value chains. Each topic is approached from an innovative perspective, aiming to shed light on Viet Nam’s pathways to advance within global value chains and to strengthen its position in modern international trade.

The ceremony concluded with insightful discussions, feedback, and suggestions for further development of the Report from experts representing state management agencies, research institutes, and the business community.

The discussion session featured many valuable insights and contributions from participating delegates. Dr. Luong Van Khoi, Deputy Director General of the Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Central Commission for Policy and Strategy, highly appreciated the quality, practicality, and information richness of the Report. He recommended that the author team prepare a policy proposal to be submitted to key state management bodies such as the National Assembly, the Government, and relevant ministries and agencies, in order to amplify the Report’s strategic value and enhance its applicability in policymaking practice.

In addition, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bui Van Huyen, Director of the Institute of Socio-Economic and Environmental Studies, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, suggested a future development direction for the Report. He proposed that each annual edition focus on an in-depth analysis of a specific theme to enhance the depth of research and strengthen its policy impact.

From the business community’s perspective, Dr. Luong Minh Huan, Director General of the Enterprise Development Foundation under the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), highly valued the policy recommendations accompanied by concrete solutions, which can help enterprises transform new growth drivers into internal capabilities, enhance competitiveness, and expand into international markets. He also emphasized the importance of fostering leading enterprises to enable Viet Nam to rise more strongly in global trade.

All contributions reaffirmed the academic credibility of the Report and its strong potential to make a meaningful contribution to Viet Nam’s international trade strategy formulation process.

The Report has been developed with the objective of identifying and analyzing in depth four new cross-cutting growth drivers—emerging at the global level but materialized and coordinated at the national and enterprise levels.

The Report consists of 5 chapters which cover some main contents: An overview of these new drivers and emphasizes the role of the Enabling State – Centered Enterprises – Connecting Universities; Next-Generation Free Trade Agreements – Institutional Foundations for Comprehensive Integration; Digital Trade – Technological Drivers for Breakthrough; Sustainable Trade – Normative Drivers for Global Market Access; Global Value Chains – Structural Drivers for Vietnam’s Upgrading.

The Report concludes with a set of comprehensive, coordinated, and multi-tiered policy recommendations, calling for close collaboration among an Enabling State, Centered Enterprises, and Connecting Universities to transform external drivers into endogenous advantages. This approach is expected to enable Vietnam to make breakthroughs and assert its role as a high-value link in international trade in the new era.

The Organizing Committee cordially invites scholars, experts, institutions, media representatives, and all interested stakeholders to attend the event from 13:45 to 16:15, Friday, October 10, 2025 at Conference Hall, VJCC Building, Foreign Trade University, 91 Chùa Láng, Láng Ward, Hanoi.

Wish the best to all of distinguished guests!

]]> https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/featured-news/press-release-ceremony-of-the-vietnam-international-trade-report-2025/feed/ 0 https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/featured-news/vietnam-international-trade-forum-2025-new-drivers-for-trade-growth-in-vietnam-s-era-of-national-rising/ https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/featured-news/vietnam-international-trade-forum-2025-new-drivers-for-trade-growth-in-vietnam-s-era-of-national-rising/#respond Tue, 07 Oct 2025 09:26:44 +0000 https://wcp.ftu.edu.vn/en/?p=3705 Forty years after the initiation of the Đổi mới (Renovation) policy, Vietnam has achieved remarkable milestones in socio-economic development and international economic integration. The accession to the WTO in 2007 and participation in a series of next-generation free trade agreements since 2015 have elevated the country to become one of the world’s top twenty economies and territories in terms of trade turnover.

 The drivers of Vietnam’s international trade growth over the past decades have largely relied on its inherent advantages, such as abundant natural resources and a low-cost labor force. However, the global, regional, and domestic trade landscapes are undergoing profound changes in the face of new challenges. In this new context, the traditional advantages that once propelled Vietnam’s trade are gradually turning into constraints, affecting both the sustainability of the economy and the competitiveness of enterprises. This reality calls for a reassessment and adjustment of Vietnam’s growth model, identifying new drivers of international trade growth to advance medium- and long-term national development objectives toward 2045.

Base on this context, the Vietnam International Trade Forum (VFIT), under the WTO Chair Program at Foreign Trade University, will be held for the second time with the theme: “New Drivers for Trade Growth in Vietnam’ s Era of National Rising.” The forum seeks to provide a multi-disciplinary dialogue platform among academics, policymakers, and the business community. The event is one of the flagship activities celebrating the 65th anniversary of Foreign Trade University.

VFIT 2 will be held from 07:45 to 12:00, Friday, October 10, 2025 at Conference Hall, VJCC Building, Foreign Trade University, 91 Chùa Láng, Láng Ward, Hanoi, comprising three major components:

• An academic forum including a keynote address, one roundtable discussion, and three parallel sessions;
• A business exhibition;
• The introduction of research projects on international trade under the WTO Chair Program at FTU, along with highlights of WCP-FTU activities in recent years.

VFIT 2 aspires to become a multi-dimensional bridge linking policymakers, the business community, and academia, thereby identifying new growth drivers to shape the future of Vietnam’s international trade in the context of a rapidly shifting global landscape marked by green transformation, digitalization, and supply chain restructuring.

The Organizing Committee of the Vietnam International Trade Forum 2025 cordially invites policymakers, researchers, academics, lecturers, enterprises, and stakeholders to participate in the event.

Wish the best to all of distinguished guests!

The seminar was attended by a distinguished delegates and experts, including:

• Ms. Trinh Thi Thu Hien – Deputy Director General, Agency of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Industry and Trade.
• Mr. Bui Van Huyen – Director, ESG Institute, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics.
• Mr. Tran Toan Thang – Head of Division, Institute of Strategy and Policy for Finance, Ministry of Finance.
• Ms. Le Hang – Deputy General Secretary, Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP).
• Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Thi Thuy Duong – Head of the Department of International Law, Ho Chi Minh City University of Law.

Delivering the opening remarks, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien emphasized the significance of the Vietnam International Trade Report 2025 in elucidating the new drivers of growth for international trade in the new era of national progress. He further underscored the paramount importance of receiving profound and insightful contributions from the experts to refine the Report prior to its official publication.

The opening remarks by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dao Ngoc Tien – Vice-President of Foreign Trade University

In the initial feedback session, Ms. Trinh Thi Thu Hien highly commended the content and quality of the Report, asserting that it presents a distinctive and unique contribution compared to numerous other international trade reports, leveraging the core research strengths of the Foreign Trade University. She proposed a more explicit elucidation of practical aspects, particularly the quantification of FTA utilization rates, which exhibit significant variance across different commodities and markets. She also acknowledged the progress in digital transformation, noting that the Certificate of Origin (C/O) issuance process is now fully automated. Furthermore, she recommended the inclusion of a comprehensive chapter on policy recommendations, spanning from the global and national levels to the enterprise and training institution levels, to enhance the Report’s applicability and practical value.

Remarks by Ms. Trinh Thi Thu Hien – Deputy Director General, Agency of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Subsequently, Mr. Tran Toan Thang lauded the practical and academic significance of the Report, viewing it as a crucial foundation for the analysis of Vietnam’s international trade within the evolving global context. Concurrently, he emphasized the imperative for the Report to strengthen its focus on timeliness and forecasting, moving beyond a mere reflection of past and present trends. He proposed incorporating recent and critical developments regarding tariffs—a factor currently reshaping the rules of trade and influencing long-term flows—alongside major trends such as the liberalization of goods and services, competition among major economies, and the global fragmentation of trade. He argued that these suggestions, linked to the geopolitical and economic landscape, would enable the Report to offer not only a reflection of reality but also practical forecasts and recommendations for Vietnam’s and global trade.

Remarks by Mr. Tran Toan Thang – Head of Division, Institute of Strategy and Policy for Finance, Ministry of Finance

Continuing the discussion, Mr. Bui Van Huyen expressed deep appreciation for the dedication and professional competence of the authoring team, while acknowledging the Report’s comprehensive scope and distinctiveness. He proposed an adjustment to the release timeline to better facilitate policy updating and planning, and recommended an earlier definition of themes for subsequent annual editions. Additionally, he suggested incorporating regional comparisons and clarifying the interrelationships between the four identified growth drivers to enhance practical relevance.

Remarks by Mr. Bui Van Huyen – Director, ESG Institute, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics

Ms. Le Hang assessed the Report as a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and objective study undertaken by Foreign Trade University. She confirmed that it would serve as an invaluable resource for industry associations in identifying international trade trends and defining growth drivers for the foreseeable future. She advocated for the inclusion of analyses on a select number of typical economic sectors to substantiate and increase the persuasive power of the Report’s arguments.

Remarks by Ms. Le Hang – Deputy General Secretary, Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP)

Finally, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Thi Thuy Duong (attending virtually) highly praised the Draft for its novelty, innovative approach, and numerous practical policy implications for the State, while also assisting businesses in developing action plans. She proposed a review and update of the data up to 2024 and suggested supplementing or clarifying the sector-specific approach to elevate the Report’s practical utility.

Concluding the seminar, the representative of the drafting team sincerely expressed gratitude for the dedicated and profound contributions from the participating experts and delegates. The team committed to maximizing the incorporation of the feedback received to finalize the Report and anticipates submitting the completed version to the experts in the near future.