Southeast Asia is grappling with one of the world’s most visible environmental challenges—plastic pollution, a problem that threatens both the region’s rich biodiversity and the livelihoods of its coastal communities. Vietnam and the Philippines, ranked among the top global contributors to marine plastic waste, face mounting pressure to address this crisis head-on. This complex problem is not merely about cleaning up waste, but also about transforming economic systems, societal behavior, and industrial practices to create a future where plastic waste no longer pollutes the environment.
One promising policy tool to facilitate this transition is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR places the responsibility for managing the end-of-life of products, particularly plastic, onto producers, ensuring that they remain accountable for the waste generated by their goods. By incentivizing companies to design products that can be easily recycled, reused, or reduced in waste generation, EPR is seen as a mechanism for advancing the principles of a circular economy. However, as Vietnam and the Philippines attempt to integrate EPR into their waste management systems, the effectiveness of these frameworks depends on how various stakeholders interpret, support, or resist them.
This article explores the policy narratives shaping EPR in Vietnam and the Philippines. Understanding these narratives is essential to grasp how the transition to a circular economy is interpreted, contested, and, in some cases, hindered by different stakeholders across the public, private, and civil society sectors.
Understanding policy narratives
Policy narratives offer more than just explanations for problems and solutions; they frame the roles of different actors, define priorities, and shape the future of policy implementation. The Narrative Policy Framework allows these narratives to be broken down into key components: setting (context), characters (heroes, villains, victims), plot (sequence of events), and moral (lessons or solutions proposed). By analyzing these narratives, it is possible to gain insight into how policies like EPR are framed and understood in Vietnam and the Philippines.
In Vietnam, EPR is seen as a critical component of the country’s broader environmental strategy, with the government positioning itself as the leader in the battle against plastic pollution. The introduction of EPR into law reflects the state’s proactive approach to guiding businesses and civil society towards sustainable practices. In the Philippines, EPR is similarly framed as essential for reducing plastic waste, but the onus of responsibility is placed heavily on large corporations to meet recovery and recycling targets. In this context, EPR is both a tool for environmental protection and a way to hold businesses accountable for the waste generated by their products.
Promoting environmental protection and pollution control
The first key narrative supporting EPR in both countries is the urgent need for environmental protection. This narrative focuses on the catastrophic consequences of unmanaged plastic waste, particularly its impact on marine ecosystems. The reliance of Vietnam and the Philippines on coastal resources for livelihoods and food security makes this narrative especially relevant. EPR, in this context, is framed as a critical solution to stop the flow of plastic waste into the oceans.
In Vietnam, the EPR law is integrated into national strategies such as the National Action Plan for Marine Plastic Waste Management, which aims to reduce marine litter by 50% by 2025. The government plays a central role as the hero of this narrative, with producers framed as both potential heroes (if they comply) and villains (if they fail to meet their obligations). In the Philippines, the EPR Act of 2022 places responsibility directly on producers, requiring them to recover a percentage of their plastic waste. This approach ties environmental protection directly to corporate responsibility, making large businesses the key actors in the fight against plastic pollution.
Both countries share a common victim in this narrative: the environment, particularly marine ecosystems, which suffer from the unchecked proliferation of plastic waste. The villains are clear as well—those who produce and consume plastic irresponsibly, with a focus on large corporations that have traditionally externalized the costs of waste management onto society and the environment. EPR is presented as a tool to right this wrong, with the moral being that producers must bear the costs of the waste they generate, thus incentivizing more sustainable production practices.
Maximizing resource efficiency
A second narrative driving EPR is the goal of resource efficiency. Both Vietnam and the Philippines view EPR as a means of promoting a circular economy, where resources are used more sustainably, and waste is minimized. Resource efficiency is a core principle of the circular economy, which seeks to “close the loop” on materials, ensuring they are reused and recycled rather than discarded.
In Vietnam, EPR is part of a broader push to reduce reliance on imported raw materials and foster domestic recycling industries. By requiring producers to meet recycling targets, the government hopes to stimulate investment in the country’s nascent recycling infrastructure. In doing so, Vietnam frames EPR not just as an environmental tool but as a driver of economic development, with resource efficiency closely tied to industrial competitiveness. The government plays a dual role here: as both regulator and facilitator of new markets for recycled materials.
In the Philippines, the EPR law similarly aims to increase the recovery of plastics and other materials, contributing to resource efficiency. However, the focus remains on managing waste at the end of the product lifecycle, rather than reducing waste generation through sustainable design or consumption practices. Critics argue that without shifting the emphasis from recycling to waste prevention, the Philippines risks perpetuating a system where resource efficiency is measured by how much plastic is recycled, rather than how much waste is avoided in the first place.
This divergence highlights a critical gap in both countries’ approaches to resource efficiency. While EPR frameworks are essential for managing plastic waste, achieving true resource efficiency will require a more comprehensive strategy that addresses both production and consumption patterns, ensuring that products are designed for longevity, reuse, and minimal environmental impact.
Strengthening economic competitiveness and innovation
EPR is also framed as a tool for enhancing economic competitiveness and driving innovation in both Vietnam and the Philippines. As global markets increasingly favor sustainable products and practices, both countries see EPR as a way to position themselves as leaders in the green economy. This narrative ties directly into broader national goals for economic development, with EPR presented as a strategy to modernize industries and attract investment.
In Vietnam, EPR regulations are designed to stimulate innovation by encouraging businesses to develop new recycling technologies and processes. The government’s vision is to create a domestic recycling industry that reduces dependence on imported materials and positions Vietnam as a regional leader in sustainable manufacturing. This aligns with the country’s broader industrial strategy, which prioritizes both economic growth and environmental sustainability.
In the Philippines, businesses that comply with EPR are seen as gaining a competitive edge by appealing to consumers who value sustainability. However, there are concerns that some businesses may engage in “greenwashing,” presenting themselves as environmentally responsible without making substantive changes to their operations. This risk is compounded by the reliance on market-based mechanisms like plastic credits, which allow companies to offset their waste production without directly reducing it. For EPR to truly drive innovation, businesses must go beyond compliance and embrace sustainability as a core component of their operations.
Advancing social inclusion and equity in waste management
Perhaps one of the most compelling narratives around EPR is the goal of social inclusion. Both Vietnam and the Philippines have large informal waste sectors, where waste pickers and recyclers play a critical role in collecting and processing plastic waste. These workers are often marginalized, lacking formal recognition or legal protections, yet they are essential to the functioning of the recycling system.
In the Philippines, the EPR Act explicitly addresses the role of informal waste workers, requiring businesses to integrate them into formal waste management systems. This is seen as both a social and economic imperative, ensuring that these workers benefit from the shift toward a circular economy. By formalizing their roles, the government aims to improve their working conditions and livelihoods while enhancing the overall effectiveness of the EPR system.
In Vietnam, the inclusion of informal waste workers is equally important but more challenging to implement. The country’s EPR regulations seek to formalize the role of these workers, but doing so without disrupting their livelihoods requires significant investment in infrastructure and capacity building. Civil society organizations in Vietnam have advocated for greater inclusion of informal workers, arguing that any circular economy transition must be just and equitable.
The heroes in this narrative are the informal waste workers themselves, who have long been on the frontlines of recycling but are only now being formally recognized. The moral here is one of social justice: a truly circular economy cannot leave anyone behind. For EPR to succeed in advancing social inclusion, both countries must ensure that these workers are fully integrated into formal waste management systems and that they benefit from the economic opportunities generated by a circular economy.
Interpreting the circular economy transition
The concept of a circular economy is not universally understood or applied, and this is particularly evident in the approaches taken by Vietnam and the Philippines under their EPR frameworks. Both countries share the goal of reducing plastic waste and promoting sustainability, but their paths diverge in significant ways.
In the Philippines, the legal framework for a circular economy is still fragmented, with existing laws focusing on waste management rather than a comprehensive transformation of production and consumption patterns. The country’s reliance on recycling as the primary tool for achieving circularity has raised concerns about “false solutions,” where businesses can claim sustainability credentials and credits without making substantive changes to their practices. Critics argue that the current focus on recycling is insufficient to drive the systemic changes needed for a true circular economy, which should prioritize waste prevention and sustainable product design.
In contrast, Vietnam’s approach is more holistic, with EPR regulations serving as a foundation for broader industrial and environmental reforms. However, the country faces significant challenges in integrating its informal waste sector into formal recycling systems. The tension between formal and informal sectors adds a layer of complexity to Vietnam’s circular economy transition, as the livelihoods of informal workers must be protected even as the country modernizes its waste management infrastructure.
Both countries have shown a tendency toward reactive policymaking, responding to immediate crises rather than developing long-term strategic visions for a circular economy. This has resulted in fragmented efforts that lack the necessary continuity and investment to drive systemic change. To truly advance a circular economy, Vietnam and the Philippines must move beyond short-term fixes and develop comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of plastic waste.
Aligning policy narratives with action
The transition towards a circular economy for plastics in Vietnam and the Philippines is deeply influenced by the policy narratives shaping EPR implementation. These narratives—centered around environmental protection, resource efficiency,economic competitiveness, and social inclusion—highlight both the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.
In the Philippines, the current trajectory of EPR has the potential to catalyze broader reforms if it moves beyond a narrow focus on waste management and embraces a holistic strategy for waste prevention. The reliance on market-based mechanisms like plastic credits, without addressing the root causes of waste, risks perpetuating the status quo rather than driving real change. In Vietnam, the successful integration of the informal waste sector into formal systems will be critical to ensuring that EPR policies are both effective and equitable.
As EPR policies continue to evolve, both countries must prioritize long-term strategies that foster innovation, enhance resource efficiency, and ensure social inclusion. This will require not only policy reforms but also a shift in how circular economy principles are understood and applied. A sustainable and circular future depends on aligning these policy narratives with meaningful action, ensuring that they drive systemic change rather than merely incremental improvements.
*About the research: This blog is based on the Author’s dissertation for his MSc in Environmental Policy and Regulation, for which the Author was awarded SEAC’s Dissertation Fieldwork Grant.
*The views expressed in the blog are those of the authors alone. They do not reflect the position of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, nor that of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Photo by OCG Saving The Ocean on Unsplash
