Since the turn of the millennium, China’s focus has been shifting slowly but steadily from a “growth at any price” approach to a more sustainable, ESG-oriented strategy. Motivated by rising environmental and health costs, the central government has set targets to reduce air, water, and soil pollution and to implement environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) objectives.

These goals are reflected i.a. in regulations on ESG and ESG reporting.

Currently, the “Basic Standards for Corporate Sustainability Information Disclosure” (Basic Standards) issued on 17 December 2024 form the basis for ESG reporting in China. While the Basic Standards do share certain similarities with the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), there are also fundamental differences. Whereas the CSRD relies on mandatory, centrally controlled standards, China is currently developing its own system with a “China-centric” adaptation of international frameworks.

What does the current ESG legal framework in China look like and which companies in China are required to conduct ESG reporting? What are the key differences between the Chinese Basic Standards and the EU-CSRD? And above all: what should European companies with subsidiaries in China do now?

Answers to these and other important questions can be found in the three-part article by Burkardt & Partner, published by HAUFE.

The three articles (in German language) are available for download at the links below:

Part 1: ESG in China: Current Legal Framework: https://bktlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250709_ESG_in_China_Aktueller_Rechtsrahmen_BurkardtPartner_Artikel_D.pdf

Part 2: ESG in China: Differences in Sustainability Reporting Compared to Europe: https://bktlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250709_ESG_in_China_Unterschiede_EU_BurkardtPartner_Artikel_D.pdf

Part 3: ESG in China: What Companies Should Do: https://bktlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250709_ESG_in_China_Was_Unternehmen_tun_sollen_BurkardtPartner_Artikel_D.pdf

—

Ihr Ansprechpartner in China: Rainer Burkardt

Burkardt & Partner

Suite 2507, 25/F, Bund Center
222 Yanan Road (East)
Shanghai 200002, P.R. China

CELL:    +86 186 1687 7153
TEL:      +86 21 6321 0088
FAX:    +86 21 6321 1100

www.bktlegal.com
info@bktlegal.com

Recently, the Supreme Court of India had to decide a case in which a family settlement was put in writing, including an arbitration clause. When arbitration proceedings started, some family members, who had not signed the agreement, wanted to join the arbitration or at least be present during the hearings. The Supreme Court rejected both. An arbitration award can only bind the signatories of the arbitration clause, and arbitration proceedings are confidential vis-à-vis third parties. Conversely, one should select carefully whom to include in an agreement and arbitration clause so that disputes may be decided with effect for all parties concerned.

Ihr Ansprechpartner in Indien: Dr. Jörg Schendel

Suman Khaitan & Co.

W-13, West Wing, Greater Kailash Part-II
Delhi 110048, Indien

CELL:     +91 97 11 08 04 03
TEL:       +91 11 49 50 15 00
FAX:       +91 11 49 50 15 99

www.sumankhaitanco.in
germandesk@sumankhaitanco.in
schendel@adwa-law.com

What Companies Need to Know under RA 10697:

Under the Philippine Strategic Trade Management Act (RA 10697), exporters must be aware that obligations do not only apply to goods expressly listed in the National Strategic Goods List (NSGL). The law also extends to so-called unlisted goods if there is knowledge, reasonable suspicion, or notification from the Strategic Trade Management Office (STMO) that such goods could be used for military or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) purposes. This principle is known as the catch-all control.

Violations can carry serious consequences. Administratively, the STMO may suspend or revoke registrations and authorizations, impose fines of up to ₱1,000,000 per violation, and order the seizure or forfeiture of goods. Where violations are willful, criminal liability arises: individuals face six to twelve years imprisonment and fines between ₱1,000,000 and ₱5,000,000 per offense. In addition, company officers who authorized or tolerated the violation may be held personally liable. Beyond these statutory sanctions, exporters also risk blacklisting, loss of accreditation with Customs, seizure of shipments, reputational damage, and even reporting to international authorities, which could affect access to overseas markets.

Authorization becomes necessary for unlisted goods in three main situations: when the exporter knows or suspects that the items may be used in WMD or military applications; when the recipient or destination is subject to UN Security Council sanctions or an arms embargo; or when the goods are later adapted or modified for military use. Even if no authorization is triggered, exporters are expected to perform due diligence: they must screen customers against denied-party lists, inquire about the end-use of the goods, assess red flags, check the STMO’s Commodity Watch-List, and promptly inform the STMO if any suspicion arises. In uncertain cases, the STMO provides an End-Use/r Advice Service.

For compliance, exporters may either issue a notarized Self-Certification for Non-Strategic Good Coverage or request a Non-Strategic Good Certificate (NSGC) from the STMO. These procedures are guided by STMO Memorandum Circulars, including MC No. 22-05, which sets out the rules for the NSGC. Where exporters already hold an STMO authorization, further scrutiny by trade control examiners may not be required.

In practice, if goods are unlisted, the destination country is not embargoed, the items are not specifically developed or adapted for military purposes, and the exporter has no grounds to suspect military use, then no authorization is required. However, if any of these conditions change—particularly if military end-use becomes likely—the exporter must register with the STMO and apply for the relevant authorization before shipment.

The key takeaway for companies is clear: even if a product is not on a control list, exporters must “know their product, know their customer, and know the end-use.” Compliance not only avoids severe penalties but also protects long-term trading privileges in international markets.

—

Ihr Ansprechpartner in den Philippinen: Lutz Kaiser

Villanueva Gabionza & Dy Law Offices

20th/F Corporate Center
139 Valero St., Salcedo Village
Makati City 1227, Philippines

CELL: +63 995 985 4957
TEL: +63 2 8813 3351
FAX: +63 2 8816 6741

www.vgdlaw.ph
kaiser@adwa-law.com

As Taiwan’s digital economy keeps on growing, staying up-to-date on the topic of online platform liability is essential for companies operating in or with Taiwan.

In a May 2025 ruling, a Taiwanese court addressed the key issue of whether a platform host may be liable for the infringing acts of its content providers. While it is not the first time local courts are faced with the question, the court ruling introduces two new factors when assessing liability:

1) First, is the content or product provider identifiable for the consumer, i.e. distinguishable from the platform host?

2) Second, has the platform made any commitments on processing infringement reports in a timely manner?

In the case at hand, a Taiwanese company operated an online platform where content providers offer movies for consumers to watch. A trademark holder claimed that the company committed trademark infringement by using a similar, unauthorized mark on its platform, which could lead to consumer confusion. Regarding the first factor, the court held that the disputed content was provided by a content provider, and that consumers would not mistakenly believe that it was a trademark use by the platform. As to the second factor, the court noted that the platform’s contract clearly stipulated sole liability of the content provider for their respective channel(s) and that the platform had promptly removed the content upon receiving notice. Therefore, the court held that the platform was not liable for trademark infringement.

However, platforms are not always exempt from liability. Some courts held platform hosts liable when they were aware of infringing content but failed to act, or when their business model profited from such content. For instance, in a 2019 court ruling, a shopping website was found to be a key driver in aggravating trademark infringement. The court determined that the platform was more than a passive intermediary, as its high level of involvement and active promotional efforts were critical to the sale of counterfeit goods.

Finally, securing strong contracts is crucial. When signing with a Taiwanese online platform or content provider, the contract should clearly stipulate which partner bears liability for intellectual property infringement. This serves as an important component of pre-screening due diligence.

Based on these trends, it would be beneficial for companies to consider the following steps on their platforms:

• making the content or product provider clearly identifiable for consumers to avoid confusion.
• Additionally, establishing an easy-to-use infringement reporting system and making a commitment to timely handling of reports.
• Last but not least, clarifying the question of liability in their contracts with content or product providers.

In summary, Taiwanese court judgments are trending toward a balance between protecting freedom of speech and safeguarding intellectual property rights. This legal landscape is increasingly aligning with international standards like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Therefore, it is fundamental for businesses to plan their legal and management strategies accordingly.

—

Ihr Ansprechpartner in Taiwan: Michael Werner

Eiger Law

Bldg. A, 2F, 25-2 Ren Ai Rd, Sec. 4
Taipei 10685
Taiwan

CELL:      +886 9 8726 1326
TEL:        +886 2 2771 0086
FAX:       +886 2 2771 0186

www.eiger.law
info@eiger. law

Starting from 1st of July 2025, enterprises operating in Vietnam must comply with new regulations on the disclosure of beneficial owners. These regulations were introduced under the amended Law on Enterprises (Law No. 76/2025/QH15) and further implemented by Decree 168/2025/ND-CP.

Who is a Beneficial Owner?

A beneficial owner is defined as an individual who:

• Directly or indirectly (e.g., through another organization) owns 25% or more of the charter capital or voting shares of a company; or

• Exercises control over key corporate decisions within a company, such as the appointment or removal of the legal representative, changes to the management structure, amendments to the charter or concerning a company dissolution.

This definition extends beyond formal ownership to include actual control and influence over the enterprise.

Who Needs to Be Reported as a Beneficial Owner?

Under these new regulations, the founder of an enterprise or the enterprise itself, via its registered legal representative, must declare and notify the provincial-level business registration authority of some of its beneficial owner(s), namely individuals who are:

• Shareholders owning 25% or more of the total number of shares with voting rights;

• Members owning 25% or more of the charter capital in a partnership or a limited liability company with two or more members;

• Owners of single-member limited liability companies;

• Individuals having the right to control key corporate decisions as determined by the enterprise or its founder through a self-assessment.

Individuals indirectly owning 25% or more of the charter capital or voting shares need not to be declared.

The declared listing must be retained at the enterprise and any change in the declared information must be updated within ten days from the date of the change.

What About Existing Enterprises?

Enterprises registered before 1 July 2025 are also subject to the new requirements. These enterprises are obliged to declare beneficial ownership information at the time another change to its business registration is processed.

The “omission” of indirect charter capital/voting share owners from the reporting requirement is not immediately explicable but might, from our point of view, result from the rather infamous proceedings concerning Ms. Trương Mỹ Lan (“The woman who stole 54 billion USD” as one prominent German newspaper titled its reporting on this case). Ms. Trương Mỹ Lan allegedly owned only 5% of SCB (Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank) while being able to dominate/control a total of 95% of the voting shares in such bank. The Vietnamese legislator probably had such factual control (possibly via personal and/or family relationships in/of the formal shareholders) in mind when drafting these new reporting regulations.

Vietnam’s new disclosure obligations are part of a broader effort to enhance corporate transparency, fight illicit financial activities and improve governance standards across the economy.

—

Ihr Ansprechpartner in Vietnam: Christian A. Brendel

Brendel & Associates Law Co., Ltd.

Golden Tower, 9th Floor, 6 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai
Dakao Ward, District 1
Ho-Chi-Minh-Stadt, Vietnam

CELL:     +84 98 978 4791
TEL:       +84 28 3911 2008
FAX:       +84 28 3911 2010

www.brendel-associates.com
info@brendel-associates.com