No more superficial risk assessments! (Aug. 2025)

Son Jin-woo, Chair

Translated by Jaehyun Oh

Reviewed by Joe DiGangi

Korean Institute of Labor Safety and Health

News of workers dying in industrial accidents spreads rapidly across media channels. Soon after, analyses flood in about the causes of each incident and predictably, one line appears again and again: “No issues were identified in the previous risk assessment.” At this point, risk assessments at many worksites have earned the reputation of being nothing more than empty formalities. Some argue that risk assessments might work in places like the UK but are inherently unsuited to South Korea. With unionization at only around 13%, critics point out that in most non-unionized workplaces, risk assessments are being used not to reveal hazards but to conceal them. This argument—the so-called “risk assessment skepticism”—deserves to be taken seriously. The Aricell disaster, which claimed many workers’ lives over a year ago, has already exposed the limits of superficial, perfunctory assessments. The recent death of Kim Chung-hyun at the Taean Thermal Power Plant also confirms how “risk assessments” have become mere paperwork, stripped of their preventive purpose. Why does this cycle keep repeating?

Risk assessments: A misstep at the start and a chance for renewal

After pilot programs between 2010 and 2012, risk assessments became a legal obligation for all South Korean workplaces in 2013.[1] Inspired by success stories from the UK—where risk assessments were credited with reducing industrial fatalities—South Korean officials and experts imported the concept and institutionalized it. But the limitations of this top-down adoption soon became clear. What South Korea imported was a form of risk assessment without its philosophical foundation and the long process of debate and consensus-building that accompanied its introduction in the UK. As a result, it failed to convince either employers or workers of its real value. Instead, authorities focused on boosting compliance rates through incentives—leading to an even more mechanical and superficial implementation. Fortunately, the introduction of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA) has reopened a window of opportunity. While some employers, guided by large law firms, have treated risk assessments as a legal shield to avoid penalties, there are growing examples of workplaces where joint discussions between labor and management have begun to uncover genuine hazards and drive real improvements. This is where hope lies.

Beyond superficiality: Who should truly be responsible for managing workplace risk?

As originally developed in the UK, risk assessment carried a new philosophy of risk governance—one that asked who should actually be responsible for managing risks in the workplace. It concluded that risk management cannot be confined to safety or health managers nor should it rely exclusively on government-level post-incident management and supervision, which has clear limitations. Real prevention happens only when workers themselves—those directly exposed to hazards—are empowered to identify and control risks. The process must be collaborative, with labor and management sharing equal footing.

The reality of superficial risk assessments: The risk that took Kim Chung-hyun’s life

The first investigation report from the Kim Chung-hyun Fatal Accident Countermeasures Committee, a nonregular worker at the Taean Thermal Power Plant, lays bare how superficial risk assessments directly contributed to the tragedy. Kim, employed by a second-tier subcontractor (Korea Power O&M), performed fabrication work requested by the first-tier contractor (KEPS). Though he officially worked alone in a machine workshop, it was common for KEPS to assign him tasks—formally or informally—outside the contract’s scope. According to official work procedures, any such task should have followed a strict chain: KEPS issues a work request, the subcontractor issues a permit, a risk assessment is conducted, and a Tool Box Meeting (TBM) is held before work begins. In reality, all these steps were skipped. Kim received verbal instructions and worked alone, without safety briefings or supervision. The investigation found that TBM documents—intended as records of collaborative safety planning—had been filled out by Kim himself, alone.[2] He conducted the “meeting,” risk identification, and documentation single-handedly. Such paperwork cannot be called a genuine risk assessment; it is instead a record of abandonment. A worker, left to face hazards alone, ultimately lost his life to a system that existed only on paper.

Risk assessments must take root as part of everyday safety practices—not as one-off events

Whether we call it a self-regulatory prevention system, a risk assessment, or a safety management framework, the essence is the same: it must be a continuous process, not a one-time exercise. Identifying and mitigating hazards requires long-term commitment, trust between labor and management, and constant revision. It is not enough to emphasize the importance of risk assessments. We must first acknowledge that workers are equal partners in risk management. Everyday safety activities—joint inspections, ergonomic assessments, workplace environment monitoring, and health checks—must be embedded in the organizational routine. Only then can risk assessment truly take root. For that to happen, workers must be given multiple channels to speak up about the dangers they face. A culture of silence breeds disaster; a culture of participation builds prevention. Only when the voices of those at risk are genuinely heard can we say that real risk assessment has finally begun to grow in the South Korean workplace.

[1] All workplaces with at least one full-time employee are legally required to conduct risk assessments. Small workplaces (under five workers or construction sites with costs under ₩100 million) may have simplified procedures but are not exempt from the obligation.

[2] In 2022, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration revised the Guidelines on Workplace Risk Assessment to loosen standards, allowing routine safety meetings such as Tool Box Meetings (TBMs) to count as formal risk assessments.