[The Editors' Verdict] Industrial Accidents Cannot Be Prevented by Threats and Severe Punishments Alone

There is hardly any industry that is immune to disasters. In various industrial sites, there are only a few places where no significant accidents have occurred for a considerable period of time. An official from a company that recently struggled to manage the aftermath of a highly publicized accident remarked, "Whether for a short or long period, the absence of disasters ironically seems to breed a sense of complacency about safety, which always makes me uneasy." This suggests that numerous potential hazards unrelated to preventive efforts are lurking throughout the workplace.

The outcome of industrial safety is determined by a combination of costs, time, and systems such as various regulations. The recent series of major industrial accidents fundamentally does not deviate from this formula. The problem is that each element in this formula has a complex and subtle underside, much like a complex system. For instance, variables such as cost and time are partly dependent on internal and external economic conditions and can be undermined by individual lapses or deviations, both large and small.

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act cannot easily cover such variables. Various indicators show that circumstances have not changed significantly since the implementation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, which serves as evidence. In fact, during the three years following the enforcement of the Act, dozens of people died while working in the public sector, but only one institution was prosecuted under the Act, and not a single head of an institution was indicted.

It is therefore strange that President Lee Jaemyung, who once strongly criticized companies with unprecedented remarks such as "murder by implied intent," "license revocation," and "stock price crash," did not show a similar reaction regarding the Cheongdo Mugunghwa train fatal accident. Moreover, related agencies that soon after launched large-scale raids and compulsory investigations into companies have remained silent. This has raised suspicions both inside and outside the industrial sector that the President may have revealed an unfounded hostility toward private companies or that these political statements were made with the intention of winning public favor.

The President and the government are surely aware that industrial accidents cannot be mitigated by threats and strict punishments alone. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, about 80% of fatal industrial accidents over the past three years since 2022 have occurred at workplaces with fewer than 50 employees. This underscores that it is not appropriate to focus solely on a few well-known large corporations, treating them as examples and disciplining them in a highly visible manner. The ruling party has called for maximizing the responsibility of primary contractors based on these circumstances, but it should not be forgotten that such an approach distorts the principles of industrial operation, undermines the productivity of companies themselves, and can lead to unpredictable and serious side effects.

Behind industrial accidents lie various structural issues that go beyond the scope of regulation, such as polarization within the industrial sector, the advancement of on-site systems, the aging of the workforce unable to keep up with these changes, and the increase in foreign workers. No one understands these structural problems better than the companies themselves. Rather than confronting and punishing companies, the government needs to shift its mindset and work together with companies to identify on-site structural issues and seek solutions.