Hanwha Aerospace (012450.KS) said in this year's environmental, social and governance (ESG) report that it had reduced the risk of serious industrial accidents by 80% using the Serious Injury and Fatality (SIF) methodology, but the same method failed to prevent a static-electricity explosion during a cleaning process. Critics say the risk reduction cited in the report did not translate into actual prevention measures, given that the Ministry of Employment and Labor's own SIF-based accident analysis included three cases of explosions during cleaning similar to the latest incident.
According to reporting compiled by The Seoul Economic Daily on Wednesday, Hanwha Aerospace presented the SIF methodology as a key measure to prevent serious accidents in its 2025 ESG report. "We introduced the SIF methodology in risk assessment starting from the Daejeon plant in 2023," the company said, adding that it had "conducted detailed analyses of all processes and systematically identified major causes that could lead to serious risks." The company further said, "Out of a total of 7,648 risk factors, we identified 2,446 SIF-related causes and reduced them to 485, cutting the risk of serious industrial accidents at all of our sites by 80%."
SIF is a risk-assessment method that identifies and manages high-risk factors likely to result in serious accidents such as fatalities or severe injuries in advance. The Labor Ministry also used the SIF methodology on March 26 to analyze 4,432 fatal accident cases that occurred between 2016 and 2021, presenting hazardous and risk factors along with mitigation measures. The materials included three cases of "explosions during cleaning" similar to the latest incident, as well as references to explosion accidents at the same plant in 2018 and 2019.
The Labor Ministry's materials cited as major cases a January 2016 fire at a petroleum products manufacturing plant that resulted in fatalities, and a February 2020 incident at a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in which multiple workers were burned by static electricity while cleaning the inner walls of a reactor.
Static electricity generated during the cleaning process is also considered the leading cause of the recent explosion at the Daejeon plant. Immediately after the accident, the company explained, "Because explosive components are neutralized when they come into contact with water, we have considered the cleaning process to be a relatively low-risk operation." But critics argue that the company underestimated the risk, given that the Labor Ministry had already flagged the danger of static-electricity explosions during cleaning processes through the SIF methodology.
In particular, while the Labor Ministry recommended measures such as scatter-prevention covers and welding fire blankets to reduce similar accidents, no such equipment was reportedly in place at the site of the latest incident. While Hanwha Aerospace cited the introduction of the SIF method and the resulting risk reduction in numerical terms in its ESG report, on-site prevention measures were not properly implemented.
The fire response system has also drawn criticism. According to fire authorities, Hanwha Aerospace's Daejeon plant received a "substandard" rating for two consecutive years in fire safety inspections of military explosives manufacturing and storage facilities, conducted last year and this year at the request of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration. The inspections focused on Building 70, where major firefighting facilities are concentrated, while Building 56, where the accident occurred, was excluded.
The cleaning room in Building 56 has an area of only 243 square meters, which did not meet the threshold requiring self-inspection results to be reported to the local fire station, and it was also exempt from mandatory sprinkler installation. Only one large fire extinguisher was reportedly available inside. "This is the third accident, and it is hard to understand that not even a sprinkler was installed," a government official said. "What matters is not the risk reduction cited on paper, but whether prevention measures that actually reduce risk on-site have been implemented."
