Issue Focus

The construction industry is a high-risk sector accounting for about 40% of all industrial accident fatalities, and since its complete revision in 2019, the Industrial Safety and Health Act has continuously strengthened the safety management duties and responsibilities of contractors.

- In 2019, when the issue of outsourcing hazardous work became a major social concern, measures such as expanding the scope of contractors’ safety and health measures and strengthening penalties were implemented, and this trend has continued to the present through comprehensive labor safety measures.

To ensure the effectiveness of the system, it is necessary to verify whether authority corresponding to the duties and responsibilities is also granted, based on the principle of triproportionality, which holds that duties, responsibilities, and authority must be balanced.

- If only obligations and responsibilities are strengthened without backing from authority, the contractor may end up bearing obligations beyond what is feasible to perform, raising concerns that this will result in merely formal and perfunctory safety management.

- Accordingly, this study diagnoses the differences in the system of obligations, responsibilities, and authority of construction contractors under Korea’s Industrial Safety and Health Act, by comparing it with relevant laws of advanced safety countries (Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan).

The comparison results show that Korea has legal mechanisms to confine the contractor’s duties and responsibilities to the scope that he can actually control, whereas such legal measures appear insufficient in Korea.

- (Mandatory) Australia and the United Kingdom adjust obligations to fit the scope of control under the “Systematically Reasonable and Feasible Limits (SFAIRP)”; the United States adjusts them differently depending on the degree of control; Japan limits the scope of application (mixed operations). Korea, however, transfers the employer’s obligation system unchanged.

- (Responsibility) The level of punishment for Korean contractors (up to seven years imprisonment) is the second highest after Australia (up to 15 years imprisonment), and shows a significant difference from Japan, where only fines are specified.

- (Authority) In Australia and the United Kingdom, construction contractors have the authority to directly design safety rules tailored to the characteristics of a site through an on-site safety management plan and apply them directly to the contractor and its workers. However, in Korea, the authority remains centered on indirect corrective demands through the contractor itself, rather than through the contractor’s workers.

The safety of the construction industry is determined by the combination of multiple factors, including the ordering system, appropriate construction costs, construction period, and safety culture, and restoring a balance among the contractor’s duties, responsibilities, and authority is one of the tasks that must be reviewed first among them.