제조사업장의 안전관리 형태에 따른 재해율과의 상관관계 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although the manufacturing industry plays a pivotal role in the national economy, it remains a high-risk sector accounting for approximately 23% of all industrial accident fatalities as of 2024. The polarization in safety levels according to company size is intensifying, with 69.4% of all accident victims occurring in small workplaces with fewer than 50 employees. The government operates a dual management system: mandating "Safety Management Consignment" with legal enforcement for workplaces with 50 or more regular
employees, while providing voluntary "Technical Guidance" support for those with fewer than 50 employees. However, empirical comparative studies on how these two systems, which differ in management intensity and legal responsibility, affect actual accident prevention performance have been insufficient.
Accordingly, this study collected five years of industrial accident data from 2020 to 2024 and analyzed the differences in accident rates and their causes according to safety management type. The study targeted 130 manufacturing workplaces (80 Consignment, 50 Technical Guidance) with secured data consistency under the jurisdiction of Safety Management Agency 'A' located in the P region. Analytical methods included frequency analysis, cross-tabulation analysis, independent samples t-test, and one-way ANOVA.
The results confirmed a structural gap in accident rates according to safety management type. Analysis of the five-year overall average accident rate showed that Technical Guidance workplaces, characterized by monthly
advisory visits, recorded a rate of 4.4%, while Consignment workplaces, subject to regular management at least twice per month, recorded 1.7%, indicating that the risk level of Technical Guidance workplaces was approximately 2.6 times higher. Independent samples t-test results confirmed statistically significant differences in both the number of accident victims
(t=-3.83, p<.001) and the number of regular employees (t=-31.19, p<.001) according to safety management type. However, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of accident victims and regular
employees according to year and industry sector. This confirmed that
differences in accident occurrence are more significantly influenced by structural differences in safety management type than by specific years or industry sectors.
Industry-specific analysis revealed that Technical Guidance workplaces consistently showed higher accident rates than Consignment workplaces across all six major sectors: automobile and trailer manufacturing (3.0 times), non-metallic mineral products manufacturing (2.9 times), other machinery and equipment manufacturing (2.6 times), fabricated metal products manufacturing (2.5 times), food products manufacturing (2.5 times), and primary metal manufacturing (2.2 times). This demonstrates that the safety management
type itself is a key variable determining accident prevention performance,
regardless of industry-specific risk characteristics.
Annual trend analysis revealed that Consignment workplaces maintained stable low accident rates at the 1% level after 2022, when Agency 'A' implemented the "Special Reduction Measures for Serious Accidents." In contrast, Technical Guidance workplaces showed a rate of 4.3% in 2024, demonstrating no significant improvement compared to the previous year (4.5%). This suggests that without close management and enforcement by specialized agencies, strengthening external legal regulations alone is insufficient to improve the safety level of small workplaces in the short term.
The academic significance of this study lies in the fact that, unlike previous
studies that mainly compared the effects of in-house appointment versus consignment or analyzed the problems of the technical guidance system individually, this study directly compared the two key support types of safety management specialized agencies within the same industry group, quantitatively identifying how institutional dualization manifests in the field.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

제조업은 국가 경제의 중추적인 역할을 담당하고 있으나, 2024년 기준 전체 산업재해 사망자의 약 23%가 발생할 만큼 사고 위험도가 높은 업종이다. 전체 재해자의 69.4%가 50인 미만 소규모 사업장에서 발생하는 등 기업 규모별 안전 수준의 양극화가 심화하고 있다. 정부는 상시근로자 50인 이상 사업장에는 법적 강제성이 수반되는 안전관리 위탁을, 50인 미만에는 자율적 지원 형태의 안전관리 기술지도를 제공하는 이원화된 관리 체계를 운영하고 있다. 그러나 관리 강도와 법적 책임이 상이한 두 제도가 실제 재해 예방 성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 실증적 비교 연구는 미흡한 실정이다.
이에 본 연구는 P지역 소재 A 안전관리 전문기관이 담당하는 제조업 사업장 중데이터 정합성이 확보된 130개소(위탁 80개소, 기술지도 50개소)를 대상으로 2020 년부터 2024년까지 5년간의 산업재해 자료를 수집하여 안전관리 형태에 따른 재해율 차이와 그 원인을 분석하였다. 분석 방법으로는 빈도분석, 교차분석, 재해율 차이, 독립표본 t검정, 일원분산분석(One-way ANOVA)을 활용하였다.
분석 결과, 안전관리 형태에 따른 구조적인 재해율 격차가 확인되었다. 5년 전체 평균 재해율을 분석한 결과, 월 1회 자문 중심의 기술지도 사업장은 4.4%의 재해 율을 보인 반면, 월 2회 이상 정기적 관리가 이루어지는 위탁 사업장은 1.7%를 기록하여 기술지도 사업장의 위험도가 약 2.6배 높게 나타났다. 독립표본 t 검정 결과, 안전관리 형태에 따른 재해자 수(t=-3.83, p<.001)와 상시근로자 수 (t=-31.19, p<.001) 모두에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 확인되었다. 반면, 연도및 업종에 따른 재해자 수와 상시근로자 수에서는 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 재해 발생의 차이가 특정 연도나 업종보다는 안전관리 형태의 구조적 차이에 의해 더 크게 영향을 받음이 확인되었다.
업종별 분석 결과, 자동차 및 트레일러 제조업(200.0%), 비금속 광물 제품 제조 업(193.8%), 기타 기계 및 장비 제조업(158.8%), 금속 가공제품 제조업(152.6%), 식료품 제조업(150.0%), 1차 금속 제조업(121.1%) 주요 6개 업종 전반에서 기술 지도 사업장의 재해율이 위탁 사업장보다 일관되게 높은 것으 로 나타났다. 업종 고유의 위험 특성과 무관하게 안전관리 형태 자체가 재해 예방 성과를 결정짓는 핵심 변수임을 보여준다.
연도별 추이 분석 결과, 위탁 사업장은 A 안전관리 전문기관이 사고성 중대 재해 특별 감소대책을 시행한 2022년 이후 1%대의 낮은 재해율을 안정적으로 유지 하였다. 기술지도 사업장은 2024년 재해율이 4.3%로 전년(4.5%) 대비 유의미한 개선을 보이지 못했다. 전문기관의 밀착 관리와 강제력이 수반되지 않는다면, 외부의 법적 규제 강화만으로는 영세 사업장의 안전 수준을 단기간에 개선하기 어렵다는 사실을 시사한다.
본 연구의 학술적 의의는 기존 선행연구들이 주로 자체 선임 대 위탁의 효과를 비교하거나 기술지도 제도의 문제점을 개별적으로 분석하는 데 그쳤던 것과 달리, 안전관리 전문기관의 두 가지 핵심 지원 형태를 동일 산업군 내에서 직접 비교하여 제도적 이원화가 현장에서 어떤 결과로 나타나는지를 정량적으로 규명하 였다는 점에 있다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 ············································································································· 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경 및 필요성 ··········································································· 1
• 제2절 연구 목적 ·································································································· 5
• 제3절 연구 범위 및 방법 ··················································································· 7
• 제2장 이론적 배경 및 선행 연구 검토 ······························································ 11
• 제1절 제조업 산업재해 및 중소기업 안전관리의 특성 ································ 11
• 제2절 안전관리 업무위탁과 기술지도 제도의 비교 ····································· 14
• 제3절 안전관리의 정책적 프레임 워크 ·························································· 18
• 제4절 안전관리 형태와 재해율에 관한 선행 연구 ······································· 22
• 제5절 연구의 차별성 ························································································ 28
• 제3장 안전관리 형태별 비교 분석 ····································································· 30
• 제1절 분석 개요 및 대상의 특성 ···································································· 30
• 제2절 안전관리 형태별 재해율 비교 분석 ····················································· 37
• 제3절 관리 형태·연도·업종별 재해자 수 및 상시근로자 수 비교 ·············· 51
• 제4절 분석 결과 요약 ······················································································ 54
• 제4장 결론 및 제언 ······························································································ 58
• 제1절 연구의 종합 및 결론 ············································································· 58
• 제2절 정책적 제언 ···························································································· 61
• 제3절 실무적 제언 ···························································································· 63
• 제4절 연구의 한계 및 향후 연구 방향 ·························································· 65
• 참 고 문 헌 ······································································································ 67
• ABSTRACT ········································································································· 70