Beyond National Pride: The Economic Debate Over Cambodia's ''Local Brands"

ផលិតផលកូនខ្មែរ, or “Cambodian Products,” has been widely used in the Cambodian market, especially following the boycott of Thai products. Some of these products are genuinely produced or grown in Cambodia, while others are imported from countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam, and Malaysia. On the other hand, many businesses use the marketing term “Local Brand” even though the products are imported from abroad, while the brand itself is owned by Cambodians.

According to Thmey Thmey, Dr. Prum Devi, an economic researcher at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, clarified that purchasing finished goods from overseas such as face creams, body lotions, or other products and simply repackaging them under one’s own brand does not significantly contribute to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In fact, the term “Local Brand” for imported products is more legitimate than using the phrase “Cambodian Products.” Many global brands operate in a similar way. For example, Apple is an American brand, yet many of its products are manufactured in countries such as China. This is often the argument Cambodian “Local Brands” use when questioned about importing their products. However, while such practices are common worldwide, international brands are usually very specific and transparent in the wording they use. For instance, Apple packaging famously states: “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.”

In this case, the key issue for local brands is transparency toward consumers, rather than relying excessively on Cambodian national pride as a marketing strategy. Cambodia currently does not strictly regulate this issue, despite having the Law on Consumer Protection and the Law on Competition. These loopholes allow some businesses to avoid being specific and transparent about the true nature of their products, particularly regarding whether the products are “locally manufactured,” “locally formulated,” or “locally sourced.”

Some Cambodian local products and brands are genuinely produced in Cambodia and have their own formulas and production processes. However, in many cases, businesses claim to be “local brands” while it remains unclear whether they actually develop their own formulas or source materials locally. In such situations, some brands continue relying heavily on foreign suppliers without possessing their own formulas or local sourcing systems yet still use “local brand” marketing to boost national pride. In many ways, this resembles “a burger without meat” essentially the same product, only with different packaging and branding.

Dr. Prum Devi pointed out a critical issue: local brands or Cambodian-branded products that are entirely imported do not create substantial added value within Cambodia’s economic system. Although local brands still contribute to the economy through business activity, Cambodia continues to face a structural bottleneck. The country has many sellers, distributors, resellers, and importers, but relatively fewer industrial producers, research and development (R&D) firms, and manufacturing ecosystems.

Similar situations occurred previously in Vietnam during the 2010s and in Thailand during the 2000s. The issue could worsen if policymakers ignore it. These practices carry the risk of polluting the market environment, causing genuinely local products and authentic local brands to suffer from declining consumer trust. Another concern is that Cambodia could eventually face the “middle-income trap,” a challenge Thailand itself has struggled to overcome for many years.

To achieve the ambition of becoming a high-income country by 2050, Cambodia should not focus solely on attracting new investment. The country must also pay attention to organizing a business ecosystem that promotes industrial development, strengthens consumer trust, and creates a fair and protected environment for genuinely local products and brands.