Similar as the effect of the “Civil Code”, which, upon its implementation, simultaneously repealed nine laws including the “General Principles of the Civil Law”, the “General Provisions of the Civil Law”, the “Contract Law” and etc. The “Civil Code” integrates the content of the nine repealed laws, relevant judicial interpretations, and adds certain new provisions. Similarly, the “Ecological and Environmental Code” consolidates the vast majority of the content of the ten aforementioned laws and introduces new provisions. A brief overview of the Code follows.

1. Structure

The Code consists of five parts: General Provisions, Pollution Prevention and Control, Ecological Protection, Green and Low‑Carbon Development, and Legal Liability, in which, Green and Low‑Carbon Development is a newly added dedicated part, which systematically regulates carbon peaking and carbon neutrality (dual carbon goals), circular economy, and cleaner production.

2. Pollution Prevention and Control

This Part integrates the content of seven pollution prevention and control laws (air, water, soil, solid waste, noise, radioactive, and marine pollution), by which it breaks down the boundaries between pollution media. Key new additions include:

(1) Air Pollution Prevention and Control: To enhance supervision of mobile sources, including railway locomotives and non‑road mobile machinery; strengthen emission control for heavy‑duty trucks, ships, and construction machinery; and set special regulations on catering fume and malodorous pollution.

(2) Water Pollution Prevention and Control: To establish of a risk management, control, and remediation system for groundwater pollution.

(3) Soil Pollution Prevention and Control: To establish a system for the identification and tracking of soil pollution liability, clarifying the responsibilities of the government, enterprises, and third‑party institutions.

(4) Solid Waste Pollution Prevention and Control: To set mandatory recycling obligations for new energy vehicle power batteries, photovoltaic modules, waste plastics, etc. And establish an information platform for inter‑provincial transfer of solid waste and full‑process traceability.

(5) Noise Pollution Prevention and Control: To control noise in key areas such as urban rail transit, aviation, and construction.

(6) Radioactive and New Pollutant Prevention and Control: To set dedicated sections on new pollutants, light pollution, and electromagnetic radiation; establish a new pollutant inventory management system and full‑cycle regulation (risk assessment, control, and governance) of chemical substances.

(7) Marine Pollution Prevention and Control: To establish systems for marine ecological protection red lines, blue carbon sinks, and coastal wetland protection, in alignment with terrestrial ecological protection mechanisms.

3. Ecological Protection

Key newly added provisions include: (1) To set systematic regulation of the principles, procedures, and key areas of ecological restoration activities. (2) To establish an invasive alien species prevention and control system. (3) To adopt the principle of integrated protection and restoration of mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, lakes, grasslands, and deserts. And (4) To specify restoration procedures and standards for forests, grasslands, wetlands, oceans, mining areas, etc.

4. Green and Low‑Carbon Development

This Part integrates relevant provisions from laws and regulations including the “Cleaner Production Promotion Law”, “Circular Economy Promotion Law”, “Energy Law”, “Energy Conservation Law”, and “Renewable Energy Law”. Unlike the Part on Pollution Prevention and Control, this Part only repeals the “Cleaner Production Promotion Law”; other energy‑related laws remain in force and their relevant provisions must still be complied with. Additionally, this Part establishes a system for controlling total carbon emissions and emission intensity, incorporates the dual carbon goals into national economic and social development plans, and clarifies statutory obligations for carbon reduction. This section incorporates content from the “Interim Regulations on the Administration of Carbon Emission Trading”, which came into force on May 1, 2024.

Overall, the legislative status of the “Ecological and Environmental Code” elevates environmental protection from mere pollution control to ecological conservation and the commercial transformation of ecological resources. In the future, the Part on Green and Low‑Carbon Development will offer significant scope for further research.

Prior to 2026, export controls targeting specific countries/regions mainly involved the United States. On December 3, 2024, the Ministry of Commerce issued Announcement No. 46 of 2024 “Announcement on Strengthening Export Controls on Relevant Dual-Use Items to the United States”. Subsequently, five announcements were issued in 2025, adding varying numbers of U.S. entities to the export control list for dual-use items. In addition, on July 9, 2025, the Ministry of Commerce added eight entities in the Taiwan region to the export control list for dual-use items.

Statements by the Japanese Prime Minister in November 2025 triggered heightened tensions in China-Japan relations. On January 6, 2026, the Ministry of Commerce issued Announcement No. 1 of 2026 “Announcement on Strengthening Export Controls on Dual-Use Items to Japan”. The announcement stipulates that: “The export of all dual-use items to military end-users and for military uses in Japan, as well as to other end-users and for other uses that contribute to enhancing Japan’s military capabilities, is prohibited.”

This announcement is highly concise and bears similarities to the aforementioned Announcement No. 46 of 2024 targeting the United States, yet also differs. Both explicitly prohibit the export of dual-use items to military end-users or for military uses in the target country. The difference lies in Article 2 of Announcement No. 46 of 2024, which further provides: “In principle, export licenses for dual-use items related to gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials to the United States shall not be granted; stricter end-user and end-use reviews shall be imposed on exports of graphite dual-use items to the United States” — a clearly operational provision. However, Announcement No. 1 of 2026 does not include similar prohibitions or strict restrictions on specific dual-use items. Beyond banning exports of all dual-use items to military end-users and for military uses in Japan, Announcement No. 1 of 2026 adds the phrase “as well as to other end-users and for other uses that contribute to enhancing Japan’s military capabilities”, which laying groundwork for the subsequent release of a watch list.

Overall, Announcement No. 1 of 2026 has broad coverage but lacks specific targeting. It is more declaratory or cautionary in nature, rather than a set of operational rules.

Nevertheless, tensions escalated further thereafter. On February 24, 2026, the first business day after the 2026 Spring Festival holiday, the Ministry of Commerce issued two announcements.

Among them, Announcement No. 11 added 20 Japanese entities involved in the military and defense industries to the export control list. For entities on the control list, the export of dual-use items to them is explicitly prohibited and shall cease immediately. With reference to the earlier export control lists targeting the United States, such a control list represents a standard practice.

Announcement No. 12 added 20 Japanese entities to a watch list, on the grounds that the end-users and end-uses of dual-use items cannot be verified. The announcement does not ban exports of dual-use items to entities on the watch list, but explicitly prohibits applications for general licenses or obtaining export vouchers through registration and declaration. Meanwhile, applicants for individual licenses must submit a risk assessment report and written commitments regarding entities on the watch list. Furthermore, the announcement stipulates that entities that fulfill their obligation to cooperate in verification may be removed from the watch list upon application and verification by the Ministry of Commerce.

The legal basis for the watch list is Article 26 of the Regulations on the Administration of Export of Dual-Use Items, marking its first practical application. In terms of industries involved, unlike the control list, entities on the watch list are mostly enterprises related to automobiles, electronic components, and raw materials. Upon closer examination of their backgrounds, the Ministry of Commerce of China appears to have targeted entities with potential diversion from civilian to military applications, strengthening end-user and end-use reviews to prevent military use. In other words, this reflects a shift in dual-use item administration from purely regulating the “items” themselves based on whether they qualify as dual-use, to governing end “uses” and “users” through supply chain scrutiny.

In view of the above announcements and circumstances, it is urgent and critical for Japanese companies or enterprises exporting to Japan to take proper measures. In general, the following measures could be taken into consideration.

First, to conduct an inventory of whether exported products fall under dual-use items.

Second, if dual-use items are involved, to clarify and map out the supply chain. Monitor whether entities in the supply chain have been included in the control list or watch list, or are suppliers to listed entities, to assess the existence and magnitude of risks.

Third, to establish a compliance management system for export control response, which mainly includes: (1) Regarding the corporate operation, to demonstrate integrity and independence across organization, management, transactions, and other aspects. (2) To design operational rules for customer screening, item and technology screening, contract clause optimization, supply chain management, etc, which not only projects the enterprise’s compliance image but also effectively prevents risks through daily management. And (3) To establish a crisis early warning and response mechanism. In the event of medium or high-risk incidents or indicators, enable prompt and effective actions, timely submission of supporting evidence, and proper response.

In practice, when implementing employee job transfers, many employers only focus on whether the employee handbook stipulates the employer’s right to unilaterally adjust positions, while ignoring the special requirements applicable to positions exposed to occupational disease hazards.

In fact, given the potential impact on employees’ health posed by positions exposed to occupational disease hazards, when transferring an employee to such positions, the employer shall inform the employee, and reach a mutual consultation according to the “Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases”. Paragraph 2 of Article 33 thereof states: “Where, during the term of an existing labor contract, a worker engages in operations involving occupational disease hazards that were not disclosed in the labor contract due to a change in job position or job content, the employer shall fulfill its obligation of truthful disclosure to the worker in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, and negotiate amendments to the relevant clauses of the original labor contract.” If an employer violates this provision, according to Paragraph 3 of Article 33: “The worker shall have the right to refuse to engage in operations involving occupational disease hazards, and the employer may not terminate the labor contract concluded with the worker on such grounds.”

Therefore, an employer’s right to manage and adjust employment is restricted when transferring an employee to a position involving occupational disease hazards, and mandatory provisions of the aforementioned laws must be implemented. There are many cases in judicial practice have proved this opinion. This opinion has a reasonable logic, that is, if an employer’s right to manage employment were to take precedence over Paragraph 2 of Article 33, that provision would undoubtedly become a dead letter. Furthermore, an employer could recruit a worker for a position free of occupational hazards, then easily transfer the worker to a position exposed to such hazards by exercising its unilateral job transfer right, which would effectively render Article 8 of the “Labor Contract Law” and Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the “Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases” meaningless.

Then if we transfer an employee from a position exposed to occupational disease hazards to a non-hazardous position, is there any risk? The answer is positive. Special attention must be paid to the following matters:

First, Article 35 of the “Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases” requires that an employee be transferred to another position if found to have suffered health damage related to the occupation. Therefore, in such circumstances, transferring the employee from a position exposed to occupational disease hazards to one free of relevant occupational disease risk factors is a statutory obligation of the employer.

Second, the job content of the new position shall be reasonable to the employee’s physical condition, as well as the reasonableness of any salary adjustment (positions exposed to occupational disease hazards usually include hazard allowances and thus may offer higher pay than other positions at the same level). For job transfers made on statutory grounds, the salary reduction should not be excessive, and the salary level of other employees in the same post after transfer shall be taken into account.

In addition, in practice, where an employee falls under the circumstances requiring mandatory job transfer under Article 35 of the “Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases”, the employee may propose to waive the transfer and voluntarily sign a commitment letter for reasons such as seeking higher income. If the employer accepts such an arrangement, it will face the risk of being penalized. Pursuant to Article 75 of the “Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases”, the employer shall be ordered to make corrections and imposed a fine of not less than CNY50,000 but not more than CNY300,000; if the circumstances are serious, heavier penalties shall apply. In such cases, if the employee insists on refusing the transfer, the company may, on the basis of retaining relevant evidence, terminate the labor contract pursuant to Article 40 of the “Labor Contract Law” on the ground that a “major change in the objective circumstances” has rendered the original contract unperformable and no agreement can be reached through consultation.

The following new provisions in No. 27 deserve the attention of relevant enterprises:

1. Further clarify the scope of industries and fields that should purchase such insurance

Specifically, the scope of industries and fields includes units in high-risk industries and fields such as mines, hazardous chemicals, fireworks and firecrackers, transportation, construction, civil explosive materials, metal smelting, fishery production and etc..

In addition, No. 27 clearly states the following requirements: (1) enterprises shall pay the premiums for such insurance timely and in full amount, they shall not apportion such insurance to individual employees in any way; and (2) The premiums can be truthfully included in the work safety expenses of the enterprise.

2. Clarify the coverage of such insurance

It is required that the insurance coverage cover all employees of the enterprise, that is, temporary employees, dispatched workers, etc. are all included in the insured objects. The insurance amount shall implement the same standard, and there shall be no differential treatment due to employment methods, job positions, etc.

3. Further clarify the scope of compensation for such insurance

No. 27 still divides the scope of compensation for such insurance into three parts: (1) Personal injuries and deaths of employees; (2) Personal injuries, deaths, and property losses of third parties; and (3) Expenses for accident rescue and relief, medical treatment, accident identification, legal litigation, etc. However, regarding the part of personal injuries and deaths of employees, No. 27 clearly defines it as “the injuries and deaths of employees for which the insured is legally liable due to work safety accidents”, rather than the personal injuries and deaths in a broad sense that occur in production enterprises.

4. Clearly stipulate the upper limit of the commission ratio for such insurance

No. 27 stipulates that the commission ratio for such insurance shall not be higher than 5%, which will help guide insurance institutions to use the premiums for accident prevention and loss compensation.

5. Provide the limit of liability for death and disability

No. 27 has increased the limit of liability for death and disability per person from CNY300,000 to CNY400,000, and local authorities can, on the basis of this minimum guarantee limit, determine the local minimum guarantee limit in consideration of the actual situation.

In addition, No.27 has also optimized the claim settlement service, established a rapid claim settlement mechanism and an advance payment mechanism for major or typical accidents, so as to quickly pay or make an advance payment of the determined insurance compensation in accordance with laws and agreements after an accident occurs.

The quality standard is a common clause in sales contracts. Usually, the parties would choose the national standard, industry standard, local standard, and enterprise standard, or choose more than one of the aforementioned standards. Among them, the enterprise standard is independently formulated by each enterprise (commonly known as the “ex-factory standard”). The prerequisite for the enterprise standard to be used as a quality evaluation standard is that the seller must prove that the buyer is aware of the content of the enterprise standard. How can the seller prove that the buyer is aware of it? Whether the seller could directly disclose its standard to the buyer, or the seller should file its standard?

For special industries such as food and medicine, due to the implementation of mandatory supervision, the enterprise standard is included in the scope of mandatory supervision. For other industries, it is necessary to investigate whether there is any mandatory requirement regarding the enterprise standards, and what are the requirements, if any.

The enterprise standard filing system originated from the “Measures for the Administration of Enterprise Standardization” in 1990. However, the vast majority of enterprises have not gone through the filing procedures. There are roughly two reasons. Firstly, the filing procedures are cumbersome. Secondly, filing means that the technical parameters, indicators, raw materials, etc. in the enterprise standard will be made public, which may disclose trade secrets. In addition, in line with the transformation of market supervision from ex-ante to ex-post, in 2015, the State Council proposed a reform plan to gradually cancel the enterprise standard filing system. In 2019, the “Standardization Law” abolished the filing system and replaced it with the “Self-declaration Publicity and Supervision System”.

Then, how should enterprises implement the “Self-declaration Publicity and Supervision System”?

Article 14 of the “Measures for the Promotion of Enterprise Standardization” stipulates that “The State shall implement a system of self-declaration, publicity and supervision of enterprise standards. Enterprises shall make public the serial numbers and names of the mandatory standards, recommended standards, group standards or enterprise standards they implement in connection with the provision of products or services. Where enterprises formulate standards by themselves or jointly formulate standards, they shall disclose to the public functional indexes of products and services, performance indexes of products and corresponding experiment methods, inspection methods or evaluation methods. …… Where the functional indexes and performance indexes disclosed by enterprises are lower or lower than recommended standards, enterprises shall explicitly indicate so in the disclosure of self-declaration…….” Article 16 stipulates that, enterprises are encouraged to make self-declaration public through the national unified public service platform for enterprise standards information, enterprises making self-declaration public through other channels shall explicitly indicate such channels on the national unified public service platform for enterprise standards information.

In addition, Article 30 stipulates that if an enterprise fails to publicize its enterprise standard, the standardization administrative department of the people’s government at or above the county level shall order it to make corrections within a time limit; if it fails to make corrections within the time limit, it shall be publicly announced on the enterprise standard information public service platform.

In conclusion:

The self-declaration publicity is a mandatory obligation, and those who violate it are at risk of being ordered to make corrections within a time limit.

The current regulations on the self-declaration publicity requirements for enterprise standards define the scope of publicity and do not limit the means of publicizing, taking into account the need for the protection of trade secrets.

Therefore, enterprises can choose to publicize their enterprise standards through the public service platform or through other means. In other words, both from the perspective of fulfilling mandatory obligations and from the perspective of avoiding the inability to provide evidence in case of quality disputes, the seller should provide its enterprise standard to the buyer.

A factory owner in Dongguan refused to hire a person with a tattoo, because she believed that a person with a tattoo might affect the overall atmosphere of the factory, as having a tattoo gives people the first impression that such person is either involved in underworld activities or disobedient. The factory owner’s words sparked a heated debate. Some people believe that the company has the right to decide its hiring standards based on its own judgment criteria, while others believe that tattoos, hairstyles, clothing, etc. fall within the scope of personal image management, and the company has no right to interfere. The dispute lies in the appropriate extent of the company’s management over its employees.

Tattoos originated from ancient religious ceremonies. In ancient China, tattoos were commonly seen in the totem beliefs of ethnic minorities. Among the Han people, tattoos were widely used as a symbol of punishment. Although Yue Fei’s tattoo represented his ambitions, such usage is rare. After China’s reform and opening up, tattoos is widely used as a symbol of personal characteristic.

In summary, Chinese has a negative perception of tattoos. However, currently, the explicit prohibition regulations regarding tattoos mainly target specific groups of people or specific industries. For example, the “Measures for the Governance of Minors’ Tattoos” stipulates that no enterprise, organization, or individual shall provide tattoo services to minors, nor shall they coerce, entice, or instigate minors to get tattoos. Another example is that the “Special Standards for Physical Examinations in Civil Servant Recruitment” stipulates that there shall be no tattoos on the whole body for positions in public security organs, prisons, etc.; for other positions, if the tattoo cannot be covered by clothing, it is also considered unqualified. Additionally, the “Quality Specifications for Railway Transport Services” stipulates that “there shall be no tattoos on the exposed parts of the bodies of train staffs.” Moreover, service industries such as airlines, banks, and hotels often have similar requirements. In consideration of safety or hygiene, industries such as hospitals and food factories impose restrictions or bans on tattoos. This is also the fundamental reason that the employers could be supported by the judicial authorities in the very few cases of dismissal due to tattoos (such as the case No. 1069 in the initial civil judgment of Kunming in 2013).

For enterprises other than those mentioned above, if they regard having a tattoo as a reason for serious violation of internal rules and regulations that can lead to dismissal, they may be suspected of employment discrimination and have high risks. If an enterprise has a low tolerance for tattoos and hopes to impose restrictions, the following measures can be taken into consideration.

(1) In the labor discipline regulations, enterprises could advocate civilized business etiquette, require appropriate dressing and grooming, and list tattoos, exaggerated hair coloring, and exaggerated hairstyles in the prohibited categories.

(2) For enterprises with a lot of external communication, such as trading enterprises, in order to deter employees from getting tattoos, it is recommended to list behaviors such as exposed tattoos as objects of punishment (such as a warning) in the penalty provisions of the rules and regulations.

(3) When an individual case occurs, it is necessary to comprehensively consider whether to impose a penalty and what kind of penalty to impose based on its internal rules and regulations, combined with the characteristics of the employee’s position, the degree of tattoo exposure, the existence of complaints, and other circumstances. If necessary, the enterprise can also consider to adjust the employee’s position.