Home > Opinion > Columns

Prevention systems matter more than tougher punishment for industrial accidents

Published: 28 Aug. 2025, 00:03

Jung Jin-woo

The author is a professor of safety engineering at Seoul National University of Science and Technology.

President Lee Jae Myung has repeatedly condemned recurring workplace fatalities at Korea’s industrial sites, going so far as to describe them as “murders by willful negligence.” While the attention to industrial safety is welcome, concerns have arisen that such remarks rely more on public sentiment than on a scientific assessment of reality. Some in the industry say the atmosphere recalls the climate of fear that accompanied the Serious Accidents Punishment Act when it took effect in January 2022.

The characterization of such tragedies as “murders by willful negligence” may resonate momentarily, but it is far removed from fact. A killing carried out with intent differs fundamentally in culpability from a death caused by preventable negligence. However indifferent a business owner may appear, no one believes managers consciously accept the deaths of workers as inevitable. Moreover, singling out companies before the causes are fully investigated undermines the principle of responsibility in law.

President Lee Jae Myung listens to Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon discuss industrial safety measures during a Cabinet meeting at the presidential office in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on July 29. [YONHAP]

The administration’s safety policy appears focused almost exclusively on tightening sanctions, with little evidence of a sober understanding of reality. There is no comparative analysis with foreign examples or evaluation of policy effectiveness. Diagnosing repeated accidents as stemming primarily from insufficient penalties reduces the problem to a “punishment-first” mantra. New proposals go beyond criminal penalties, fines and administrative sanctions to include extraordinary surcharges not found in foreign legislation. Such measures risk creating what could be called a “department store of sanctions” unrivaled anywhere in the world.

In truth, Korea already imposes some of the world’s toughest penalties for safety violations. To argue that accidents persist because punishments are too weak is a serious misdiagnosis. Heavy-handed approaches have only inflated costs while failing to reduce accidents, and in some cases distorted safety practices at the worksite. Yet little reflection is being offered on the shortcomings of punitive policy.

Misdiagnosis often leads to reckless policy. The government, emphasizing its duty to protect lives, appears ready to announce sanctions-based measures as if they were decisive solutions. Pledges to expand what is already a large inspection work force go in the same direction. The approach leans more toward optics than substance.

Few would deny the necessity of penalties. But criminologists generally agree that harsher punishment does not proportionately increase deterrence. Excessive sanctions may signal that the government is acting decisively, yet they risk functioning as an alibi that spares policymakers from addressing the structural causes of accidents or from crafting practical prevention measures. The result is a further delay in genuine prevention.

The government’s stance resembles parents who threaten to punish a child for poor grades without providing the necessary environment for study. The child may pretend to work hard or resort to shortcuts. Likewise, in a legal environment riddled with unworkable rules, harsher penalties will not suddenly strengthen a company’s safety capacity.

Construction workers work at a new apartment building in Seoul on April 30. According to statistics, the number of deaths from industrial accidents last year reached 827, an increase of 15 from 2023. By industry, construction accounted for the largest share with 328 fatalities.[NEWS1]

Korea’s current laws are filled with provisions that even willing firms struggle to comply with. The perception that “every law can catch someone” is widespread, and many believe enforcement depends more on discretion than predictability. Businesses criticize the government for blaming companies while ignoring its own shortcomings. Safety becomes a matter of appearances or worse, resignation. Preventive infrastructure is especially weak among small- and medium-sized enterprises. Without fixing these realities, expectations of fewer accidents are misplaced. The government should instead focus on developing a prevention system that is both effective and workable.

Framing the issue as a “war on industrial accidents” risks fueling an urge among regulators to pursue symbolic crackdowns rather than root causes. History shows that sanctions without improvements in prevention systems are castles built on sand. If the government truly seeks to reduce accidents, it must place priority on strengthening the structures that prevent them — even if doing so is arduous.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.