How labour law clarity could define Bangladesh’s FDI future
As international investment becomes more selective and energy security grows more urgent, countries that offer clarity will move ahead and those that hesitate will be left behind
As Bangladesh approaches LDC graduation, the conversation around growth is shifting from ambition to execution. Domestic demand is rising, export industries are under pressure to move up the value chain, and energy security is becoming a strategic priority.
In this context, foreign direct investment (FDI) is no longer a nice-to-have, it is fundamental. Capital-intensive sectors such as infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and oil and gas exploration depend on long-term foreign capital, global technology and institutional expertise. Yet Bangladesh continues to lag behind its regional peers in attracting such investment.
The numbers tell a sobering story. In the most recent fiscal year, Bangladesh received less than $2 billion in net FDI inflows. Vietnam, by contrast, attracted more than $18 billion, while Indonesia crossed $20 billion. This gap cannot be explained by labor costs or market size alone. Bangladesh offers competitive wages, a large workforce and a strategic geographic location. The difference lies primarily in the predictability and clarity of the regulatory environment.
Global investors today are not persuaded by slogans or demographic projections. They assess rules, enforcement consistency and legal certainty. Vietnam's ability to draw sustained foreign investment over the past two decades rests on a simple premise: investors understand the regulatory framework and trust that it will not shift unexpectedly. Malaysia and Indonesia, despite their own challenges, have followed a similar path.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Bangladesh, however, continues to send mixed signals, particularly in areas where labor law intersects with foreign ownership.
Few issues illustrate this better than the Workers' Profit Participation Fund (WPPF) under Section 232 of the Bangladesh Labor Act, 2006. The principle of ensuring workers share in corporate profits behind WPPF is both legitimate and socially important. Recognising the unique structure of fully foreign exchange–investing companies, lawmakers amended the Labor Act in 2013 to allow for a separate mechanism "in lieu of WPPF." More than ten years later, that mechanism has yet to be defined.
This prolonged absence of implementing rules has created a grey zone that investors find difficult to navigate. Multinational firms often already offer compensation packages that exceed local norms, including performance-linked pay, global insurance coverage, training abroad and long-term career development. Without clear guidance, WPPF obligations appear as an additional, open-ended cost. One that may be interpreted differently by different agencies over time. For investors considering commitments spanning two or three decades, such uncertainty is a serious deterrent.
The implications extend far beyond one industry. Sectors that Bangladesh hopes to attract, such as energy, petrochemicals, ports, pharmaceuticals, technology parks and higher-value segments of the RMG supply chain, require large upfront investments backed by predictable operating conditions. Yet foreign participation in Bangladesh's apparel ecosystem remains modest compared to Vietnam or Cambodia, despite Bangladesh's global dominance in garment exports. Regulatory ambiguity, particularly around labor compliance for wholly foreign-owned firms, is a recurring concern in investor assessments.
Recent developments in the energy sector offer a case in point. The most recent offshore oil and gas bidding round failed to draw the level of participation policymakers had anticipated. While geological risks, pricing formulas and global market conditions were central considerations, feedback from industry sources suggests that unresolved regulatory issues including uncertainty around WPPF treatment for 100% foreign-exchange investing companies are among the broader risk calculations of potential bidders.
Clarifying Section 232 should not be seen as diluting worker protections. On the contrary, it offers an opportunity to strengthen them. One workable approach would be to adopt a model similar to that applied to 100% export-oriented enterprises, replacing firm-level profit-sharing with a transparent, fixed contribution to a national workers' welfare fund. Such a system would provide predictability for investors while ensuring broader and more consistent welfare coverage for workers.
What is needed now is not prolonged debate but structured action. A time-bound, tripartite process involving government, worker representatives and foreign-invested enterprises could resolve this issue decisively. Completing this long-pending reform would signal that Bangladesh respects its own legislative intent and understands the expectations of global capital.
As international investment becomes more selective and energy security grows more urgent, countries that offer clarity will move ahead and those that hesitate will be left behind. Resolving the uncertainty around Section 232 is not merely a technical amendment to labor rules. It is a strategic choice that will help determine whether Bangladesh can compete credibly with Vietnam, Indonesia and others for the next wave of sustainable foreign investment.
Mollah Amzad Hossain is the editor of Energy & Power magazine. E-mail: mollah.amzad@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
