KCCI and Korea SMEs and Startups Agency Hold 'Legislative Task Forum for Advancing Industrial Accident Prevention'
[Asia Economy Reporter Kiho Sung] Regarding the 'Serious Accident Corporate Punishment Act' currently pending in the National Assembly, it was pointed out that "legislation strengthening punishment for companies inevitably has limitations in reducing accidents" and that "it is urgent to shift the current uniform safety regulations to prevention policies tailored to the characteristics of industrial sites."
The Korea Employers Federation (KEF) and the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business held a joint discussion forum on legislative tasks for the advancement of industrial accident prevention on the 2nd.
Kim Yong-geun, KEF's full-time vice chairman, said in his opening remarks, “The Serious Accident Corporate Punishment Act imposes more abstract and comprehensive obligations on business owners. The current Industrial Safety and Health Act already stipulates some of the world's toughest penalties, and this new act not only mechanically increases the sentencing but also sets a minimum sentence. As a result, CEOs now live in fear of facing sentences of three years or more if an accident occurs.”
Vice Chairman Kim added, “To effectively reduce fatal accidents, South Korea must now change its industrial safety policy paradigm to focus on prevention, like advanced foreign countries. Considering that the revised Industrial Safety and Health Act, which allows for increased sentences in fatal accidents, has been applied since this year and is still in its early stages, it is reasonable to discuss the necessity of enacting the Serious Accident Corporate Punishment Act after a mid- to long-term evaluation.”
KEF then introduced a video interview with Nicholas Rigby, Chief Inspector of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and Professor Victoria Roper of Northumbria University Law School, discussing the UK's industrial accident prevention policy framework and the background and application cases of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act.
Chief Inspector Nicholas Rigby explained, "When the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) was enacted, the safety management policy shifted from a uniform and rigid regulatory approach based on government orders and directives to a corporate autonomous responsibility management approach. The role of administrative agencies also changed significantly. Under the previous directive-based legal system, inspectors would checklists in hand to inspect whether safety guards met regulations and whether safety measures were implemented. Now, companies can choose their own methods to achieve safety management goals, making the comprehensive capabilities of inspectors more important and allowing for diverse approaches."
Professor Victoria Roper said, "Currently, general industrial accident fatalities in the UK are mainly regulated by the Health and Safety at Work Act, and most prosecutions are carried out under it. Only a small number of cases fall under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. The reduction in industrial accident fatalities in the UK should be seen as a long-term trend resulting from the general Health and Safety Act regulations, and the impact of the Corporate Manslaughter Act on reducing fatalities is not significant."
KEF pointed out, “As seen in the UK case, legislation that strengthens punishment for companies inevitably has limitations in reducing accidents. Just as the UK shifted its safety policy focus to prevention when enacting the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974, South Korea urgently needs to change its current uniform safety regulations to prevention policies suited to the characteristics of industrial sites.”
Following this, Professor Lee Geun-woo of Gachon University Law Department presented on “A Legal Review of the Serious Accident Corporate Punishment Act,” criticizing the bill’s problems by stating, “Punishment should only be applied under very strict conditions, and the constitutionality of the means cannot be justified solely because the purpose of the legislation is legitimate.”
Professor Lee pointed out, “The concepts of ‘serious accident’ and ‘management responsibility’ subject to this act are broad, the scope of risk prevention obligations is ambiguous, and the provisions for punishing management and corporations, which are the core contents of this act, are consistently severe penalties, raising doubts about its applicability. It would be difficult for judges to impose such heavy penalties on management based on broad violations of obligations.”
Professor Jung Jin-woo of Seoul National University of Science and Technology’s Department of Safety Engineering, presenting on “Problems and Paradigm Shift in Industrial Accident Prevention Policy,” stated, “The Serious Accident Corporate Punishment Act overall does not align with safety principles and legal principles, lacks effectiveness in accident prevention and operability in the field, and from a comparative law perspective, it is composed of content lacking universality and systematic structure.”
Professor Jung further proposed as a measure to reduce fatal accidents, “We must fundamentally shift the paradigm of South Korea’s industrial accident prevention policy by making safety standards more precise and effective, strengthening accident investigation functions and preventive guidance administration based on the expertise of industrial accident prevention administrative organizations.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
