IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i2p240-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Young Jun Choi
  • Mi Sun Jeon

Abstract

Humidifier sterilizers were regarded as innovative and health‐promoting products; they were widespread in South Korea until 2011. However, hospitals reported mysterious deaths, and a legal investigation in April 2016 found that hundreds of people have died due to use of the sterilizing disinfectant. This article takes up that topic, discussing the government's role in dealing with the risk regarding the humidifier disinfectant. We pay particular attention to the unequal nature of the uncertainty produced by the distorted socioeconomic structure. Through in‐depth interviews with key informants and an examination of relevant documents from the government, civic groups, and newspapers, we find that the government had increasingly acknowledged the risk, yet their inaction failed to stop the high number of casualties, and they have only recently responded proactively. The uncertainty of the risk was unevenly distributed between companies, the government, experts, and citizens. We argue that the proactive and transparent role of the government with the precautionary principle could fix the unequal structure of knowledge production and preserve public health.

Suggested Citation

  • Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:240-253
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13400
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13400?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    2. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    3. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Terje Aven, 2019. "The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1196-1203, June.
    5. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    7. Daniele Mandrioli & Cristin E Kearns & Lisa A Bero, 2016. "Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes:," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    3. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020. "A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2399-2412, November.
    4. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    6. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    9. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Bernhard Streicher & Moritz Bielefeld & Eric Eller, 2023. "The Risk Culture Framework: Introducing an Integrative Framework for Holistic Risk Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    11. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    12. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    13. Terje Aven, 2013. "On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 462-468, March.
    14. Hausken, Kjell, 2021. "The precautionary principle as multi-period games where players have different thresholds for acceptable uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    15. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2019. "Making Sense of Risk—A Sociological Perspective on the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 749-760, April.
    16. Tom McLeod Logan & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema & Roger Flage, 2022. "Risk science offers an integrated approach to resilience," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 741-748, September.
    17. Barry Anderson & Emanuele Borgonovo & Marzio Galeotti & Roberto Roson, 2014. "Uncertainty in Climate Change Modeling: Can Global Sensitivity Analysis Be of Help?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 271-293, February.
    18. Divya Choudhary & Ravi Shankar & Alok Choudhary, 2020. "An Integrated Approach for Modeling Sustainability Risks in Freight Transportation Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 858-883, April.
    19. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    20. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:240-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.