When occupational safety and health disclosure can become a corporate strength, not just a regulatory burden

[Financial News] Until now, Korean companies have voluntarily disclosed occupational safety and health information in line with international standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) indicators, and ISO 45001. But the "occupational safety and health status disclosure" under Article 10-2 of the revised Occupational Safety and Health Act goes beyond voluntary disclosure or a simple declaration. It is now a statutory obligation required by the state, and an official source that allows internal and external stakeholders to continuously monitor and evaluate a company’s occupational safety and health management system.
With the first disclosure due in April 2027, companies should not stop at preparing submission documents. They should use this new system as a turning point to reorganize safety and health data, internal controls and risk management systems in preparation for the sustainability disclosure era beginning in 2028.

Previous disclosure of industrial accident information was limited to post-incident measures, such as publicly releasing a list after an accident, and had little effect on encouraging proactive prevention. In response, the government introduced the occupational safety and health status disclosure system as follow-up legislation to the Comprehensive Occupational Safety Plan announced in 2025, and it will take effect in August 2026.
The purpose of the system is not simply to disclose whether an accident occurred. Its significance lies in transparently revealing what kind of occupational safety and health management system a company operates, how much manpower and budget it allocates, and what efforts it makes to prevent accidents and recurrence. By doing so, it encourages objective evaluation by the market and stakeholders, while pushing companies to strengthen prevention-oriented safety management systems.
At present, the plan under review is to first apply the system to companies with 500 or more regular employees, with the possibility of expanding it later to companies with 300 or more employees. Companies subject to disclosure must report each year on items prescribed by law, including their occupational safety and health management system, industrial accident status, safety and health activities and plans, investment status and recurrence prevention measures. The chief executive officer must review and sign the contents before submitting them to the Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) and publishing them on a designated website.

For the system to work properly, a basic foundation must first be established to ensure full compliance with legal obligations.
First, companies need to determine whether they fall under the disclosure requirement and clearly define how far the disclosure scope should extend among the entire corporation, business sites, subsidiaries and partners. If the disclosure boundary is unclear, errors may occur in data calculation, and confusion can arise when responding to requests for corrections from regulators or questions from stakeholders.
Companies should also document and share across the organization the definitions and calculation standards for each disclosure item, including the basis for calculating accident rates and whether accidents involving partners are included. In addition to lagging indicators such as accident counts, leading indicators such as safety training, risk assessments and implementation rates for corrective actions should also be quantified to ensure objectivity and comparability in the disclosed data.
Disclosure information must be the product of a safety and health management system that actually works. The roles and responsibilities of top management, supervisors, safety departments and on-site teams must be clearly defined, and the system on paper must match actual operations in the field. In particular, if worker participation and feedback in the risk assessment process are only formalities, the credibility of the disclosure will decline and it could lead to allegations of inadequate reporting.
In addition, source data and disclosure information must be organically linked so that industrial accident status can be verified through accident reports and workers’ compensation records, training results through training logs and completion records, and investment amounts through budgets and spending evidence. Building a system that allows disclosure figures to be traced back to source materials will also become a key basis in future labor inspections and accident investigations.

However, simply meeting legal requirements is not enough. If occupational safety and health disclosure is to become a strategic tool that enhances trust and competitiveness, a more advanced management system is needed.
First, occupational safety and health disclosure must be consistent with other disclosures such as sustainability reports, business reports and board materials. If figures or explanations differ from one document to another, market trust can be lost. Companies must also continuously manage changes in hazardous and risk factors, accident occurrences and the implementation of corrective measures so they can explain not only the level at the time of disclosure, but also the improvement process and trend over time.
Occupational safety and health disclosure is not the job of the safety department alone. Companies need an organization-wide collaboration system in which relevant departments such as safety, legal, finance, ESG and IR work together to verify data accuracy, legal validity and consistency with existing disclosures. Inspections through the Industrial Safety and Health Committee and procedures for gathering worker feedback must also be operated in parallel.
Communication strategy after disclosure is also important. Companies should prepare FAQs and explanatory materials that reflect expected questions and key issues, and continuously monitor reactions from the media, investors, labor and management so they can respond quickly and consistently to factual errors or controversies.
Above all, occupational safety and health disclosure should not be treated as a one-time regulatory response. It must be accumulated as time-series data that shows a company’s safety level. Comparing annual information makes it possible to objectively identify improvement trends by site, the effect of safety investment and recurring weak points. This becomes important management data for deciding medium- and long-term safety and health strategies and investment priorities. The accumulated disclosure data can also serve as reliable evidence of a company’s sustainability and risk management capabilities in ESG assessments, supply chain management, public procurement, financial and insurance reviews, and investor communications.

The environment after disclosure is also expected to change significantly. AI-based analysis systems are likely to compare and analyze corporate disclosure information in real time, ushering in an era in which accident status, safety investment and the effectiveness of corrective measures are evaluated comprehensively. As a result, not only the accuracy of individual data points, but also year-to-year trends, return on investment, consistency across disclosure materials and alignment with actual implementation will become even more important evaluation factors.
As sustainability disclosure expands gradually from 2028, occupational safety and health information is likely to become a key indicator for judging a company’s sustainability and risk management capabilities. As the market uses this data more actively, demand for accuracy and traceability will grow, and over the long term there may also be a move toward independent third-party verification.
Stakeholder attention is also likely to expand beyond individual business sites to the broader supply chain, including subsidiaries, affiliates and partners. Companies should not limit themselves to the statutory disclosure scope. Instead, they need clear standards for how far they will manage occupational safety and health information for sites and partners that they actually control, oversee or significantly influence.