Compare in-house workplace risk assessment with an actual Korean consulting quote over one to ten years and the same workers, processes, tasks, hazards, initial assessment, annual regular assessments, and user-planned ad hoc assessments. The dedicated bilingual calculator reuses one pure KRW function for process, task, hazard, meeting, documentation and follow-up person-hours, internal loaded hourly cost, training and tools, consulting quotes, travel, non-recoverable VAT, confirmed support, retained coordination and common improvement budgets. It reports total and annual economic cost, per-process cost, work weeks, internal-hour, total-hour and quote-subtotal break-even thresholds, while preserving employer responsibility and worker participation. The guide reflects Occupational Safety and Health Act Articles 36 and 175 in current MST 283449, Enforcement Rule Articles 37 through 37-4 in current MST 288431 effective August 1, 2026, and the current workplace risk-assessment guidelines checked August 14, 2026, without treating noncompliance or fines as an economic option.
Default hours and quotes are illustrative inputs for checking the math. Replace them with your process list, task inventory, worker participation time, loaded labor cost, and a written like-for-like proposal.
Use the same workers, processes, tasks, hazards, and initial, regular, and ad hoc schedule for both models.
1 to 10 years
Use the actual assessment units: lines, departments, or work areas
Use existing registers, near misses, and walk-through evidence
Year one is automatically zero when an initial assessment is included
Reflect equipment, material, and work-method changes
Include pay, employer burden, and relevant overhead per person-hour
Used to convert person-hours into equivalent workweeks
Enter meeting time as total person-hours across every participant, not just elapsed meeting length.
Example: 6 people × 2 hours = 12 person-hours
Relative to one full assessment
Relative to one full assessment
Enter a written proposal aligned to the same scope, frequency, deliverables, site visits, and follow-up.
Keep corrective-action cost common to both budgets, and deduct support only after written confirmation.
Engineering controls, PPE, and work-method improvements
Use a tax-reviewed value; the default is 0%
Deducted only when status is confirmed in writing
3-year total economic cost comparison
In-house KRW 2,440,000 saved
In-house total
KRW 15,660,000
Consulting total
KRW 18,100,000
In-house hours
304 hours
Consulting internal hours
50 hours
KRW 15,660,000
Budget including common improvements: KRW 27,660,000
KRW 18,100,000
Budget including common improvements: KRW 30,100,000
Each card holds every other input fixed and changes one variable until both total economic costs match.
54,606.3 KRW/hour
Consulting is cheaper above this internal hourly cost; in-house work is cheaper below it.
358.22 hours
Holding other inputs fixed, total in-house hours must be at or below this value to cost no more than consulting.
12,060,000 KRW
Holding other inputs fixed, the consulting quote subtotal must be at or below this value to cost no more than in-house work.
Common corrective-action cost of KRW 12,000,000 is treated as necessary under either delivery model, excluded from the break-even difference, and added equally to both budgets.
When an initial assessment is included, year-one regular assessment is not double-counted; the entered regular frequency starts in the following year.
| Year | Initial | Regular | Ad hoc | In-house hours | In-house cost | Consulting internal hours | Consulting cost | In-house budget | Consulting budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 131.2 h | KRW 7,164,000 | 26 h | KRW 9,120,000 | KRW 11,164,000 | KRW 13,120,000 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 86.4 h | KRW 4,248,000 | 12 h | KRW 4,490,000 | KRW 8,248,000 | KRW 8,490,000 |
| 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 86.4 h | KRW 4,248,000 | 12 h | KRW 4,490,000 | KRW 8,248,000 | KRW 8,490,000 |
South Korea 2026 guidance · primary sources checked 2026-08-14
A consulting proposal is visible cash, while an in-house risk assessment often looks free because its labor is hidden inside payroll.
In-house work still requires process walk-throughs, task observation, hazard identification, worker participation, meetings, risk decisions, corrective-action planning, communication, documentation, and record retention.
Consulting does not eliminate internal work either: the workplace must prepare evidence, coordinate site access and workers, review deliverables, execute controls, and respond when an ad hoc reassessment is needed.
This calculator places both delivery models on the same scope: workers, processes, tasks, hazards, and the same initial, regular, and ad hoc assessment schedule.
It converts in-house person-hours and training or tool cash cost into KRW, then compares those amounts with written consulting quotes, travel, nonrecoverable VAT, and retained internal person-hours.
The result includes a one-to-ten-year economic cost, annual schedule, and break-even thresholds for loaded hourly cost, total in-house hours, and consulting quote subtotal.
Nonperformance is never a comparison option in this calculator.
It does not add an expected administrative fine or accident loss to make a statutory duty look like an optional investment.
Hiring a consultant also does not automatically transfer the employer’s Korean Occupational Safety and Health Act Article 36 duties for performance, worker participation, communication, corrective action, and records.
Occupational Safety and Health Act Article 36, effective for this amendment on June 1, 2026, requires the employer to identify work-related hazards, decide whether risk is tolerable, and establish and implement measures to reduce the risk.
It also addresses participation by affected workers, participation by a worker representative upon request, communication of the schedule and results, and record retention.
Enforcement Rule Articles 37 through 37-4, effective August 1, 2026, provide the current detailed sequence, timing, participation, communication, and retention rules used as the boundary for this planner.
| Source | Current rule boundary | Calculator input |
|---|---|---|
| Enforcement Rule Article 37(1) | Identify hazards, decide whether risk is tolerable, and establish and implement measures for unacceptable risk | Process, task, and hazard review plus meeting, documentation, and follow-up hours |
| Enforcement Rule Article 37(2) | Initial assessment before work first begins; at least annual regular assessment from the following year; ad hoc assessment before relevant work after specified triggers | Initial toggle and annual regular and ad hoc counts |
| Enforcement Rule Article 37-2 | Worker participation in a workplace walk-through in principle, with survey, interview, or other methods available alongside it | Total person-hours for workers, supervisors, and other participants |
| Enforcement Rule Article 37-3 | Communicate the schedule before assessment and hazards, decisions, measures, and implementation results afterward | Documentation and communication person-hours |
| Enforcement Rule Article 37-4 | Record timing, responsible people, participants, and results, and retain the material for three years | Record-owner hours and any company-specific tool or repository cost |
The current rule places it before work first begins at the workplace.
It starts in the year after the initial assessment and occurs at least once every year.
It is required before relevant work where an additional hazard may arise or after specified accident triggers.
If the plan includes an initial assessment in year one, the calculator does not double-count a regular assessment in that year; the entered regular frequency begins in year two.
Actual ad hoc frequency depends on equipment, materials, procedures, near misses, and events, so refresh the planned count whenever the change-management pipeline changes.
A break-even result is only meaningful if both options promise the same work.
Comparing a complete in-house workplace assessment with a proposal for selected processes understates consulting cost, while comparing an end-to-end proposal with only in-house walk-through time understates internal cost.
Build one scope sheet and attach it to both the internal work breakdown and the request for proposal.
A process is not necessarily one department on an organization chart; use a separate unit where workflow and risk characteristics require distinct observation and review.
Count routine and nonroutine tasks, including cleaning, inspection, maintenance, replacement, start-up, shutdown, and abnormal-response work.
Build the hazard count from prior assessments, near misses, incident evidence, safety data sheets, equipment specifications, work-environment measurements, health examinations, and worker interviews.
The calculator deliberately does not estimate these counts because equipment, materials, traffic, shifts, experience, and simultaneous work differ even within the same industry.
Meeting person-hours are frequently understated.
A two-hour meeting attended by six people consumes twelve person-hours for economic-cost planning, not two.
Do not reduce worker-participation time to make one option look cheaper; value the actual paid time of everyone expected to participate.
Loaded internal hourly cost is not merely an employee’s base hourly wage.
Use the company’s decision basis for pay, employer burden, benefits, relevant overhead, and opportunity cost of displaced work.
If several grades participate, calculate grade-specific person-hours and cost first, then divide total cost by total hours to obtain a weighted hourly value.
A later review is not automatically shorter than an initial assessment.
The 60% regular and 30% ad hoc defaults are illustrative test values, not Korean legal standards or industry benchmarks.
Use 100% or more for a broad reassessment and an evidence-based lower percentage for a narrow equipment change.
A complex accident review or a major process change can require more work than the original full assessment.
A consulting budget may include more than one initial invoice.
Separate per-review prices for regular and ad hoc work, site-visit travel, additional shift coverage, revisions, and corrective-action verification.
If an annual advisory retainer includes assessments, document included counts and overage prices, then allocate the actual expected proposal amount into the relevant fields.
| Cost group | Written evidence to obtain | Calculator field |
|---|---|---|
| Professional fees | Scope and price for initial, regular, and ad hoc reviews | Three quote fields |
| Travel and expenses | Visit count, location, transport, lodging, shift, and overtime treatment | Expense per assessment |
| Internal setup | RFP, comparison, contract, access, security, and evidence handover | Selection and onboarding hours |
| Internal review work | Site escort, worker coordination, evidence, review, and corrective-action execution | Internal hours for each review type |
| Tax and support | VAT recoverability, approved amount, settlement conditions, and payment timing | Nonrecoverable VAT and confirmed support |
The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency’s KRAS service provides consulting information and application routes, but eligibility, budget, application windows, and allocation can change.
A search result or an old program notice is not a confirmed receivable.
The calculator applies zero support while status is not checked or under review, even when an amount has been typed.
Change status to confirmed only after written evidence, and note that the applied amount is capped at external cost rather than converted into profit.
Full-assessment hours add process, task, and hazard work to meeting, documentation, communication, and follow-up hours.
Regular and ad hoc hours multiply the full-assessment hours by their entered effort percentages.
Total economic cost adds loaded internal labor to initial training, tool setup, and annual tool or reference cash cost.
Quote subtotal adds the initial fee and every regular and ad hoc fee over the horizon.
Travel and nonrecoverable VAT are added, and only confirmed support is deducted up to external cost.
The model then adds loaded internal labor for selection, onboarding, evidence, site work, coordination, and review.
In-house total = in-house cash + in-house hours × loaded hourly cost
Consulting total = net external cash + consulting internal hours × loaded hourly cost
Hourly-cost break-even = (net external cash − in-house cash) ÷ (in-house hours − consulting hours)
In-house-hour break-even = (consulting total − in-house cash) ÷ loaded hourly cost
Where in-house work uses more internal hours, consulting becomes cheaper above this loaded hourly value and in-house work is cheaper below it.
It shows the maximum total in-house person-hours that cost no more than consulting at the current hourly value and proposal.
It shows the maximum combined professional-fee subtotal after holding travel, VAT, confirmed support, and retained internal work fixed.
A break-even value is not a lawful minimum effort level or a fair market price.
It is only the mathematical point where cost is equal while every other input stays fixed.
Never reach the threshold by deleting worker participation, field observation, hazard scope, communication, records, or corrective-action verification that the actual assessment requires.
The default example uses a fictional Korean workplace with 30 workers, 6 processes, 24 tasks, and 60 hazards.
Year one includes one initial and two ad hoc assessments; years two and three each include one regular and two ad hoc assessments.
Loaded internal cost is KRW 45,000 per hour, and every hour and quote is an illustrative input rather than a government schedule or market benchmark.
| Metric | In-house | Consulting | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total internal person-hours | 304 hours | 50 hours | About 25.33 and 4.17 workweeks at 12 available hours per week |
| Cash cost | KRW 1,980,000 | KRW 15,850,000 | Training and tools versus proposal and travel cash |
| Internal labor cost | KRW 13,680,000 | KRW 2,250,000 | Each option’s internal hours multiplied by KRW 45,000 |
| Total economic cost | KRW 15,660,000 | KRW 18,100,000 | In-house is lower by KRW 2,440,000 |
| Budget with common controls | KRW 27,660,000 | KRW 30,100,000 | KRW 4,000,000 per year added equally to both |
This is the loaded internal hourly-cost break-even.
In-house is cheaper below it and consulting is cheaper above it, with other inputs fixed.
This is the total in-house-hour break-even.
Actual in-house hours must be at or below it to cost no more than the current consulting model.
This is the professional-fee quote-subtotal break-even.
With travel and internal work fixed, the combined quote must be at or below this amount to match in-house cost.
The lower in-house result does not recommend in-house performance for every workplace.
If competent personnel cannot free 304 person-hours before the required timing, or if specialized hazards are likely to be missed, capacity and quality become more important than the KRW difference.
Conversely, a proposal that delivers a completed form but excludes worker participation, corrective-action execution, editable evidence, and follow-up is not the same output merely because retained hours are low.
A workplace with limited experience may use an expert for initial criteria, templates, training, and field coaching, then operate regular and ad hoc reviews internally.
The calculator compares all-in delivery models, so model a hybrid by running a first scenario for the initial consulting phase and a second for later in-house operation.
Confirm editable deliverables, training, methodology explanation, and a defined question period in the consulting contract.
Equipment, material, and procedure changes make ad hoc frequency and effort a major economic driver.
Count the prior twelve months of change records, near misses, incidents, and maintenance interventions, then request the consultant’s emergency response price and lead time.
Even with strong internal capability, targeted expert review for a particular chemical, machine, or process hazard may be more appropriate than complete outsourcing.
Combining several sites into one process count can hide travel, shift, simultaneous-work, and contractor coordination.
Separate site walk-throughs and each employer’s scope, then reflect coordination in process, task, meeting, and travel inputs.
This planner does not determine principal and contractor duties or professional-institution status, so obtain current Korean safety and legal review before contracting.
When the gap is within 5%, modest estimation error can reverse the ranking.
Divide total internal hours by weekly available capacity and verify that work can finish before initial work or relevant changed work begins.
If capacity is unavailable, assign more personnel, change the implementation schedule, or obtain external support even when the nominal in-house total is slightly lower.
Amended Article 175 administrative-fine provisions related to risk assessment phase in from January 1, 2027, or January 1, 2028, depending on workplace size and the construction-project threshold described in the statute’s implementation note.
This timing does not make nonperformance a valid low-cost option before either date.
Recheck current statutory text, workplace-size application, official guidance, and enforcement practice at the time of the decision.
No.
An external expert may support the process, but the employer remains the statutory actor under Article 36.
Worker participation, risk decisions, corrective action, communication, and records do not automatically transfer through a service contract.
No.
Price depends on industry, sites, processes, tasks, hazards, visits, shifts, measurements, deliverables, and follow-up scope.
Obtain two or three written like-for-like proposals and enter the actual values.
Include every actual participant: the employer representative, responsible manager, safety and health staff, supervisors, affected workers, and worker representative where involved.
Six people attending for two hours equals twelve person-hours.
Type it for scenario tracking if useful, but keep status as not checked or under review until written confirmation.
The calculation deducts support only when status is confirmed because eligibility, budget, timing, allocation, and settlement conditions can change.
The input permits a deficient budget plan to be inspected, but the calculator displays a warning.
Current Enforcement Rule Article 37(2) requires at least one regular assessment every year starting in the year after the initial assessment, so review the actual schedule with a qualified professional.
Controls for the same identified risk are needed whichever delivery model performs the assessment.
The calculator adds common controls equally to both budgets but leaves them out of the delivery-model price difference.
If one option produces a different control scope, align scope before comparing cost.
No.
Confirm that competent people can provide the required hours before statutory timing, identify specialist hazards, involve workers, execute controls, and preserve evidence.
Cost is one decision dimension, not a compliance or quality score.
Primary text was checked on August 14, 2026, through the Korean National Law Information OPEN API and official Ministry of Employment and Labor and KOSHA pages.
The Act record is law ID 001766, current MST 283449; the Enforcement Rule is law ID 007364, current MST 288431.
The Workplace Risk Assessment Guidelines were checked as administrative-rule sequence 2100000251014, Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice 2024-76, as a supporting procedural source.
Revisit the calculator whenever the Act, Enforcement Rule, administrative guidelines, KOSHA support terms, or the workplace’s actual scope changes.
In particular, recheck the 2027 and 2028 administrative-fine phase-in, current support notices, workplace-size treatment, and construction-project thresholds at the time of the decision.
Collect in-house hours from recent task registers, walk-throughs, and meeting records, then request a consulting proposal for exactly the same scope.
Use cost as one input, confirm timing, competence, worker participation, corrective-action execution, and follow-up, and assign the accountable owner and next assessment date.