Risk Assessment Procedure Template for Global HR Teams

Risk Assessment · Safety System

Risk Assessment Procedure Template
for Global HR Teams

Write the shortest procedure that covers the required ground.

📌 Korean Risk Assessment Procedure: Key Takeaways

Korea expects you to have written your own rules first. The Ministry of Employment and Labor notice requires the employer, at the preparation stage, to draw up implementation rules fixing the purpose and method of assessment, the roles of the assessor and the responsible person, the timing and procedure, how workers participate, and how results are recorded and retained. The assessment itself is then measured against that document.
That makes the procedure a double-edged instrument. Nothing obliges you to commit to a monthly site patrol or a five-point risk matrix but once your own rules say you will, an inspector reading the file compares your practice against your own text before comparing it against the statute.
A global ISO 45001 risk assessment standard is usually a fine methodology and a poor Korean procedure. It typically lacks four things the Korean file needs: Korean trigger points, a fixed acceptable-risk criterion, a documented worker participation route, and a communication record.
The current notice is MOEL Notice No. 2024-76, in force since 2 January 2025, and its amendment made one point that matters directly to foreign-invested entities: workers are to participate in the assessment and receive its results regardless of employment type or nationality fixed-term and dispatched workers included.
The template below is a clause skeleton, not a filled-in document. Three inputs have to come from your own entity before it is usable: your acceptable risk criterion, the identity of your workers' representative, and your contractor interface. Those are the sections that fail audits, and they are the ones no template can supply.

🔎 Why Korean Risk Assessment Requires a Local Procedure

Most foreign-invested entities arriving at this question already own a risk assessment standard. It came with the global EHS management system, it was written against ISO 45001, it has a matrix, a form, and an owner in another country. The instinct is to translate it and file it.

The instinct is half right. Korea does not prescribe a methodology, and a competent global method is not disqualified by being global. What Korea prescribes is a set of things your procedure has to decide, and a global standard decides most of them differently or not at all because it was written for a portfolio of sites, not for a single Korean entity with a Korean workforce and a Korean inspection risk.

There is also a shift in how the assessment is read after this year's amendment. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, as amended with effect from 1 June 2026, redefines risk assessment to run from hazard identification through to establishing and actually implementing improvement measures. It makes worker participation an express duty and adds an obligation to inform workers of the results. From 1 January 2027 for entities with 50 or more full-time workers 1 January 2028 below that administrative fines attach to failures of assessment, participation, communication and record-keeping as four separate items.

Four separate duties want four separate places in a document to live. That is what the procedure is for.

One warning before the template. Write the shortest procedure that covers the required ground. A twenty-page document imported wholesale from a global standard commits the Korean entity to practices it has no capacity to sustain, and every uncommitted practice becomes a finding. The template below is deliberately spare.

🧾 Korean Risk Assessment Procedure Template: Clause by Clause

Copy the headings. Fill the bracketed fields from your own entity. Keep the Korean anchor column in your internal working version and delete it from the version you circulate.

ARTICLE 01

Article 1. Purpose of the Risk Assessment Procedure

These Rules set out the procedure by which [Entity Name] identifies hazardous and risk factors at its workplace, determines the resulting risk, and establishes and implements measures to reduce it, in accordance with Article 36 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Keep it to one sentence, and make sure the sentence includes implementation of measures. The amended definition covers the whole cycle; a purpose clause that stops at "identify and evaluate" describes a narrower activity than the one the law now names.

ARTICLE 02

Article 2. Scope: Employees, Contractors and Dispatched Workers

These Rules apply to all work carried out at [site address], including work performed by workers of contractors, dispatched workers, and workers engaged under fixed-term contracts, regardless of nationality.

This is the clause global standards get wrong most often, because global scope statements are written around the employed headcount. Two Korean-specific points sit here.

Dispatched workers: under Article 35 of the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, the using employer is treated as the employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act for matters relating to the dispatched work. The dispatching agency does not carry this.

Contractor work: the notice provides that in contracted work the principal and the contractor each conduct their own assessment, and that the principal reviews the contractor's result and reflects necessary improvements. That is an interface obligation, not a delegation write it into the clause and again into Article 10 below.

ARTICLE 03

Article 3. Definitions and Acceptable Risk Terminology

"Hazardous and risk factor", "risk", "acceptable risk level", "workers' representative", "assessor", "responsible person".

Define acceptable risk level here even though you will set its value in Article 6. And define workers' representative in the Korean statutory sense the representative of a trade union organised by a majority of workers, or where none exists, a person representing a majority of workers — rather than importing a works council or employee forum concept from the group.

ARTICLE 04

Article 4. Risk Assessment Roles and Responsibilities

The person in overall charge of safety and health management shall supervise the assessment. The safety manager and health manager shall assist and advise. Supervisors of the relevant work, and workers engaged in that work, shall participate. Where necessary, persons with specialist knowledge of the machinery, equipment or process concerned shall be included.

Two practical notes for a foreign-invested structure. First, name Korean positions, not global job titles — a regional EHS director sitting outside Korea is not the person in overall charge of safety and health management for the Korean entity. Second, if your entity has no appointed safety or health manager because it sits below the appointment threshold, say so and name who performs the equivalent function; a blank in this clause reads as an omission rather than an exemption.

ARTICLE 05

Article 5. Risk Assessment Method

The Entity shall apply [select: frequency-and-severity method / checklist method / three-level risk judgment method / key factor description method] as its principal method.

The notice recognises these methods, and the choice is genuinely yours. Two observations.

For an office-based or sales entity, the three-level risk judgment method and the key factor description method are usually a better fit than a frequency-and-severity matrix, because the hazards are few and the matrix produces a page of identical low scores that demonstrates nothing.

If you retain the global matrix, retain it in full including its scoring definitions. A five-by-five matrix reproduced without its scoring guidance is the single most common way a translated global standard becomes unauditable.

ARTICLE 06

Article 6. Acceptable Risk Level and Decision Criteria

A determined risk at or below [level] is acceptable. A risk above [level] shall not be accepted, and work shall not commence or continue until reduction measures under Article 9 have been implemented.

This clause is the reason the whole document exists, and it is the one most often left as a placeholder.

The notice contemplates the employer setting, in advance, the level of risk it regards as acceptable and the criteria for judging it. Without it, "the risk was assessed as medium" carries no consequence, and the assessment cannot function as a control on the work. With it, the file shows a decision rule that was applied.

Set it conservatively and set it once. A criterion that moves between assessments is worse than a strict one.

ARTICLE 07

Article 7. Initial, Event-Driven, Annual and Continuous Assessment Timing

Initial assessment: commenced within one month of the date the business was established. Event-driven assessment: before the affected work begins, on the occurrence of any trigger listed in Annex 1. Assessment following an accident: before the affected work is resumed. Annual review: before the date falling one year after the date of the initial assessment. [Optional] Continuous assessment: monthly, weekly and daily components as set out in Annex 2, performed in full.

Do not restate the statutory triggers in the body of the procedure; put them in an annex you can amend. And do not adopt continuous mode in the procedure unless the entity will actually run all three of its components the substitution for event-driven and annual assessment operates only if the whole routine is performed, and a procedure that promises a weekly implementation check the entity does not hold is a documented failure rather than an undocumented one.

ARTICLE 08

Article 8. Hazard Identification and Workplace Site Patrol

Hazardous and risk factors shall be identified by workplace site patrol, worker suggestion, survey or interview, and review of safety and health information gathered under Article 11. Site patrol shall be included unless there is a special reason not to.

The notice treats the site patrol as the default component. Global systems that run identification entirely through a desktop workshop or a platform questionnaire are the ones that fail this clause.

ARTICLE 09

Article 9. Risk Determination and Risk Reduction Measures

Reduction measures shall be considered in the order of: elimination or alteration of the hazardous work; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. After implementation, the Entity shall confirm whether the risk has been reduced to the acceptable level and, where it has not, shall take further measures.

The hierarchy is familiar from any global standard. What is worth writing explicitly is the closing sentence the confirmation step. Under the amended definition, implementation is part of the assessment, and a record showing a measure proposed with no confirmation of effect is an incomplete assessment rather than a pending action.

ARTICLE 10

Article 10. Worker Participation in Risk Assessment

Workers engaged in the work concerned shall participate in setting the risk judgment criteria, identifying hazardous and risk factors, determining the safety and health measures to be taken, and confirming whether reduction measures have been implemented. Where the workers' representative requests participation in the assessment, the Entity shall guarantee it. Participation shall be open to workers of all employment types and nationalities.

This clause carries its own fine now, so give it its own evidence trail: the advance notice of the assessment, the method of participation used, who took part, what they raised, and what became of it. An attendance sheet with signatures and no content is the weakest possible version of this record.

The 2024 amendment to the notice put nationality and employment type expressly in scope. For an entity with a mixed workforce that is not a formality it is the provision that makes a Korean-only participation session inadequate where part of the workforce cannot participate in Korean.

ARTICLE 11

Article 11. Preparation and Safety Information Gathering

Before each assessment the Entity shall gather: applicable law and guidance; work standards and procedures; specifications of machinery, equipment and facilities and safety data sheets for chemical substances; layout drawings; work environment measurement results; records of previous accidents and near misses; and previous assessment results.

This is the fourth statutory record element, and it is the one entities forget to keep because it feels like input rather than output. It is output for record purposes.

ARTICLE 12

Article 12. Communication of Risk Assessment Results

The Entity shall inform workers engaged in the work of: the hazardous and risk factors relating to that work; the risk determination; the reduction measures, the implementation plan, and whether the measures were implemented; and the matters workers must observe. Communication shall be by [training / briefing session / posting at the workplace / written or electronic means], in Korean and in English.

Note the third item. The requirement is not satisfied by communicating the plan; it extends to whether the measures were implemented. A posted assessment with a column of planned controls and no completion communication is incomplete on its face.

Hazards capable of causing a serious accident are to be communicated on an ongoing basis rather than once in practice, through pre-work safety meetings.

ARTICLE 13

Article 13. Risk Assessment Records and Retention

The record shall contain: the hazardous and risk factors assessed; the content of the risk determination; the content of measures taken; the safety and health information gathered in advance; and any other matter these Rules require. Records shall be retained for not less than three years from the date on which the assessment concerned was completed. [Recommended: five years.]

Three years is the statutory minimum, and the clock runs from each assessment's own completion date rather than from year-end. Entities that purge on a calendar-year cycle destroy event-driven assessments early. Longer retention is a recommendation rather than a requirement, and the reason for it is the Serious Accidents Punishment Act half-yearly check, which is evidenced by the assessment history behind it.

ARTICLE 14

Article 14. Annual Review of the Risk Assessment Procedure

These Rules shall be reviewed at least annually and on any material change to the Entity's operations, and any amendment shall be communicated to workers under Article 12.

📊 Korean Legal Requirements vs Global ISO 45001 Risk Assessment Standards

Procedure clause	Korean anchor	What a global ISO 45001 standard typically omits
Art. 1 Purpose	OSH Act Art. 36; amended definition covering implementation	Stops at evaluation; implementation sits in a separate corrective-action process
Art. 2 Scope	Notice Art. 5 (contracted work); Dispatched Workers Act Art. 35; Notice as amended 2024 (all employment types and nationalities)	Scope written around employed headcount at the site
Art. 4 Responsibilities	Notice Art. 7 (person in overall charge supervises; safety and health managers assist)	Names global roles with no Korean statutory counterpart
Art. 5 Method	Notice Art. 7 (frequency-and-severity, checklist, three-level judgment, key factor description)	Matrix imported without its scoring definitions
Art. 6 Acceptable risk level	Notice Art. 11 (determination against a pre-set acceptable level)	Left to assessor judgment; no fixed threshold
Art. 7 Timing	Notice Art. 15 (initial / event-driven / annual / continuous)	Single annual cycle aligned to the global audit calendar
Art. 8 Identification	Notice Art. 10 (patrol, suggestion, survey; patrol included by default)	Desktop workshop or platform questionnaire only
Art. 9 Reduction measures	Notice Art. 12 (elimination → engineering → administrative → PPE, then confirmation)	Hierarchy present; confirmation-of-effect step absent
Art. 10 Participation	OSH Act Art. 36 as amended; Notice Art. 6	Consultation described as good practice, not evidenced
Art. 11 Preparation	Notice Art. 9 (advance safety and health information)	Treated as input, not retained as record
Art. 12 Communication	OSH Act Art. 36 as amended; Notice Art. 13 (four items incl. whether implemented)	Results published to a platform; no implementation-status communication
Art. 13 Records	Enforcement Rule Art. 37 (four elements; three years); Notice Art. 14 (clock from completion date)	Retention set by global policy, often on a calendar-year purge

⚠️ Three Risk Assessment Fields Every Korean Entity Must Define

A procedure downloaded and adopted unchanged fails in the same three places every time.

Your acceptable risk criterion. This is a business decision about what work you will allow to proceed, and it has to be made by someone with authority in the Korean entity. Borrowing the global threshold is defensible only if the global matrix is reproduced with its definitions and the Korean entity's operations actually resemble the sites it was calibrated for. Where they do not an office entity using a manufacturing matrix the criterion is unusable and the assessment produces uniformly acceptable results that no inspector will credit.

Your workers' representative. Many foreign-invested entities have never formally identified one, because they have no union and have never needed to. The participation duty now runs partly through this person, and the amended Act requires participation to be guaranteed where they request it. If the position has never been filled, the record of selection the notice, the vote or written consent, the outcome is itself a document you may be asked to produce before anyone reaches your assessment file.

Your contractor interface. Cleaning, security, facilities, IT installation, fit-out, catering these are the contracted activities present at almost every Korean entity, including office-only ones. The principal and the contractor each assess; the principal reviews the contractor's result and reflects improvements. Write down who receives the contractor's assessment, when, and what happens to it. Absent that, the site has assessments that never met each other.

🌐 Drafting a Korean-English Risk Assessment Procedure

Nothing in the statute or the notice expressly prescribes the language of a risk assessment procedure, so the position is one you take rather than one you find. What the law does say is that workers participate and are informed duties measured by what reached the worker.

The workable structure is a single document in two columns, or two documents with a stated hierarchy.

Make the Korean version operative. It is the version an inspector reads, the version that governs where the two diverge, and the version that has to carry the Korean statutory terms accurately. Translating those into approximate English equivalents and back is how procedures drift out of alignment with the notice they were built on.

Make the English version a full translation rather than a summary. A summary is enough for awareness and not enough for the English-reading employee who is supposed to participate in setting the criteria. Where your entity's working language is English and its statutory language is Korean, both versions need the same content, and the record should show both were issued on the same date.

The 2024 amendment to the notice is the reason to be careful here rather than pragmatic. Participation and communication now extend to workers regardless of nationality, and the fine schedule from 2027 treats participation and communication as two distinct failures. An entity that ran a Korean-only assessment cycle in a workforce that is half non-Korean-reading has, on the face of the record, two of them.

⚠️ Common Risk Assessment Procedure Mistakes

Translating the global standard and adopting it as the Korean procedure, without deciding the acceptable risk level.
Committing in the procedure to practices the entity will not sustain monthly patrols, quarterly reviews, a five-by-five matrix nobody is trained on. Your own rules become the audit standard.
Naming global roles in the responsibilities clause instead of the Korean statutory positions.
Reproducing a risk matrix without its scoring definitions, leaving the determination unexplainable.
Writing scope around the employed headcount, leaving contractor, dispatched and fixed-term workers outside the document.
Adopting continuous mode in the procedure and performing only the monthly component, thereby losing the event-driven and annual assessments as well.
Building an assessment form but no participation form and no communication form the two records the 2027 fine schedule created.
Communicating the improvement plan and not whether it was implemented.
Retaining records on a calendar-year purge instead of three years from each assessment's completion date.
Issuing the procedure in Korean only in a workforce where a substantial share cannot read it, or in English only where the workforce cannot read that.
Leaving the workers' representative unidentified until the moment participation has to be evidenced.

💬 How EAP Supports Risk Assessment, Worker Participation and HR

A procedure document is a set of promises about behaviour. Article 10 above promises that workers will participate that they will raise hazards, contribute to the criteria, and confirm whether measures worked. The document cannot make that happen. It can only create the place where it would be recorded if it did.

What determines whether anything gets raised is closer to the ground. A worker reports a hazard to the manager who assigns their work, sometimes in front of colleagues, sometimes in a second language, often without knowing how the report will be received. Where the hazard involves workload, pace, staffing or the way the work is organised, the difficulty compounds the concern implicates the conditions the manager is accountable for. The predictable result is a participation record that shows attendance and nothing raised, and an annual review with nothing to review.

The World Health Organization's guidance on mental health at work is explicit that organisational conditions, rather than individual resilience, drive outcomes, and it pairs manager capability with worker-directed support as complementary interventions. ISO 45003 places psychosocial risk inside the occupational health and safety management system the same system your Korean risk assessment procedure belongs to, which means psychosocial hazards are assessable objects rather than wellbeing extras. Under the EAPA Core Technology, confidential problem identification and assessment, and consultation with managers and organisations on employee and organisational issues, are core employee assistance functions.

For an entity building this procedure, three connections are worth making deliberately.

A confidential route that does not run through the line manager, available in Korean and English, so that a concern about how work is organised has somewhere to go when the reporting line is part of the problem.

Supervisor support, so that the manager who receives a disclosure during a site patrol or a pre-work meeting has somewhere to take it before it becomes an incident.

Aggregate input into the annual review, where a pattern across a team not attributable to any individual and not visible in any one report is precisely the kind of finding Article 7's annual review exists to catch.

The procedure gives participation a place to be recorded. Whether there is anything to record is a separate question, and it is answered by conditions rather than by forms.

🔗 Related Korean Risk Assessment Guides

Risk Assessment Documentation: What Inspectors Actually Look For (EN) →

Risk Assessment in Korea: Mandatory Implementation Steps for Employers (EN) →

❓ Risk Assessment Procedure FAQ for Global HR Teams

Q1. Do we have to have a written procedure, or is conducting the assessment enough?

The notice places the preparation of implementation rules at the preparation stage of the assessment, covering the purpose and method, the roles of assessor and responsible person, the timing and procedure, the method of worker participation, and the recording and retention of results. In practice the document is what makes the rest of the file legible it is where your acceptable risk level, your chosen method and your participation route are fixed. An entity assessing without one has to explain each of those decisions from scratch every time it is asked.

Q2. Can we adopt our global standard and add a Korean annex?

Yes, and for a group with a mature methodology that is often the cleanest structure. Two conditions. The annex has to carry every Korean-specific decision timing triggers, acceptable risk level, participation, communication, retention rather than cross-referring to a global process that does not contain them. And the combined document has to be producible in Korea, in Korean, on request, without a headquarters administrator in another time zone. A procedure that exists only inside a global platform under a corporate login is difficult to produce at the moment it is asked for.

Q3. Our Korean entity is an office with 30 people. Is this proportionate?

The obligation applies; the volume does not. For an entity of that size the procedure should be short the fourteen articles above fit comfortably in four or five pages and the annual assessment may identify a small number of hazards. What does not scale down is the structure: you still need a stated acceptable risk level, a participation route, a communication record, and a retention rule. Note also that entities below 50 full-time workers have until 1 January 2028 before the administrative fines apply, while the underlying duties have been in force since 1 June 2026.

Q4. Which version governs if the Korean and English texts differ?

Whichever your procedure says, and it should say the Korean one. Write the hierarchy into the document rather than leaving it to be argued later. The practical reason is that the Korean text carries the statutory terms as the notice uses them, and divergence between the two versions almost always originates in translation of those terms rather than in a deliberate difference of substance.

Q5. Does the procedure have to cover our contractors' workers?

Your scope has to cover the work carried out at your site, and the interface with contractors has to be described. The notice provides that in contracted work the principal and the contractor each conduct their own assessment, with the principal reviewing the contractor's result and reflecting necessary improvements. So the answer is not that you assess on the contractor's behalf it is that your procedure has to say who receives their assessment, when, and what happens to it. Dispatched workers sit differently again: under Article 35 of the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, the using employer is treated as the employer for the dispatched work, so they belong inside your assessment rather than at an interface with it.

👉 Next Steps for Global HR Teams in Korea

Take your entity's current risk assessment documentation and check whether it answers five questions in writing.

What is our acceptable risk level, and who set it? What are our assessment triggers, and are they Korean triggers rather than a global calendar? Who participates, how are they invited, and where is what they raised recorded? What was communicated back to workers, in which languages, and did it include whether the measures were implemented? And how long do we keep the record, counted from when?

Where the answer to any of these is held in someone's practice rather than in a document, that is the clause to write first. Where the answer is held in a global standard that does not contain a Korean equivalent, that is the clause to localise.

Then set the review date. A procedure that was correct in August 2026 and untouched through the amendment cycle is the version that will be read in 2027.

If your organization is building this alongside a confidential channel for the hazards workers will not raise through the line, and manager support for the disclosures that arrive during patrols and pre-work meetings, contact Nudge EAP to discuss an implementation model suited to your workforce.

NOTE: This article is intended for general informational purposes only. Specific legal, medical, clinical, or employment-related matters may require review by an appropriately qualified professional. The clause language above is an illustrative drafting aid, not legal advice, and it should not be adopted as an entity's implementation rules without review by qualified Korean counsel or a licensed labor attorney particularly where risk assessment findings interact with liability under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

👉 Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →

📚 Sources and Korean Legal References

산업안전보건법 제36조 (위험성평가의 실시), 국가법령정보센터 — https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsId=001766&ancYnChk=0
산업안전보건법 시행규칙 제37조 (위험성평가 실시내용 및 결과의 기록·보존) — 기록 4개 항목 및 3년 보존, 국가법령정보센터 연계정보 — https://law.go.kr/LSW//lsLinkCommonInfo.do?lspttninfSeq=75593&chrClsCd=010202
사업장 위험성평가에 관한 지침 (고용노동부고시 제2024-76호, 시행 2025. 1. 2.), 국가법령정보센터 행정규칙 — https://www.law.go.kr/LSW//admRulInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000251014&chrClsCd=010201
「사업장 위험성평가에 관한 지침」 일부개정 (고용노동부 지침 게시), 고용노동부 — https://www.moel.go.kr/info/lawinfo/instruction/view.do?bbs_seq=20241201150
사업장 위험성평가에 관한 지침(고용노동부고시 제2024-76호) 개정 자료 — 개정 이유(고용형태·국적과 관계없이 모든 근로자 참여·공유), 인정 기준점수 70점→90점, 인정기간 3년 중 1회 이상 사후점검, 인정심사위원회 외부위원 과반, 일신안전(주) 자료실 — https://www.ilshin-safety.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=dataroom&wr_id=45
사업장 위험성평가에 관한 지침(고용노동부고시 제2024-76호, 2025. 1. 2. 시행) 원문 게시, 한국안전보건환경협회(KOPSHE) 자료실 — https://kopshe.co.kr/board/file1?viewMode=view&ca=&idx=28
사업장 위험성평가에 관한 지침 전문 — 제5조(실시주체: 도급인·수급인 각각 실시, 도급인의 수급인 결과 검토), 제7조(방법: 빈도·강도법·체크리스트법·3단계 판단법·핵심요인기술법), 제9조(사전준비: 실시규정 작성), 제10조(유해·위험요인 파악: 순회점검 포함), 제11조(위험성 결정), 제12조(감소대책 우선순위), 한국위험관리센터 — https://www.greenwhistle.net/사업장-위험성평가에-관한-지침개정/safety/
사업주를 위한 위험성평가 안내 (2024. 10.) — 사전준비 안전보건정보 목록, 최초평가 1개월 이내 착수, 정기평가 최초평가일부터 1년이 되는 날 이전, 평가 방법 4종, 기록 항목 및 완료일부터 3년 보존, 월간 건축사지 — https://kiramonthly.com/2090
위험성평가 제도 개편과 시사점 — 2026. 6. 1. 시행, 정의 확대(개선대책 수립·이행 포함), 근로자대표 참여 요구 시 참여 의무, 안전보건교육·설명회·게시·서면·전자적 방법에 의한 주지 의무, 과태료 1천만원 이하 / 5백만원 이하, 법무법인 대륙아주, 법률신문 — https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=216663
2026년 개정된 산업안전보건법의 주요 내용은 — 위험성평가 근로자 참여·결과 공유 의무 및 과태료 신설, 2026. 2. 19. 공포 / 2026. 6. 1. 시행, 김동현 변호사, 서울경제 — https://www.sedaily.com/article/20055169
근로자 500명·건설 1200억 이상 안전공시 의무화 — 위험성평가 과태료 차수별 금액(500/700/1,000만원, 참여·공유 150~500만원, 기록·보존 50~300만원) 및 적용 시기(50인 이상 2027. 1. 1. / 50인 미만 2028. 1. 1.), 안전보건공시제 2026. 8. 1. 시행, 정보통신신문 — https://www.koit.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=208080
500인 이상 기업 안전 공시 의무화 — 산업안전보건법 시행령 개정안 국무회의 의결, 위험성평가 미실시 과태료 최대 1,000만원, 아주경제 — https://www.ajunews.com/view/20260721093936824
파견근로자가 있는 경우 산업안전보건법 준수 주체는? — 파견법 제35조에 따라 파견근로에 관하여는 사용사업주를 산안법상 사업주로 봄, 사용사업주·파견사업주 의무 구분, 무사퇴근연구소 — https://musa-lab.com/kor/board/issue?viewMode=view&page=18&idx=121
파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제35조 (산업안전보건법의 적용에 관한 특례), 국가법령정보센터 — https://www.law.go.kr/법령/파견근로자보호등에관한법률/제35조
위험성평가가 서류로 끝나는 순간, 중대재해는 반복된다 — 시행규칙 제37조 3년 보존, 감독·수사에서의 평가 기준(작업 전 공유 여부, 위험요인 통제 후 작업 여부), 법무법인(유한) 율촌 — https://www.yulchon.com/ko/resources/publications/legal-update-view/43137/page.do
2026년 위험성평가 결과 주지·게시와 근로자대표 참여 — 근로자대표의 범위 및 선출 기록, 주지·게시 방법과 증빙 요건 — https://blog.silronomu.com/risk-assessment-worker-representative-notice-2026/
World Health Organization, Guidelines on Mental Health at Work (2022) — https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052
World Health Organization, Mental health at work fact sheet — https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work
ISO 45003:2021, Occupational health and safety management — Psychological health and safety at work — https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html
Employee Assistance Professionals Association, Definition and Core Technology of Employee Assistance Programs — https://eapassn.org/page/definitionandcoretechnology

Risk Assessment & Safety Management System

Risk Assessment Procedure Template for Global HR Teams