https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/economy_general/58967.html
Hankyoreh 21
6 March 2026
Samsung's ‘Secrecy’ Hidden in Vietnam Factories
Early 2026 on-site investigation confirms pollution and industrial accidents ‘outsourced’... Human rights group: “Enactment of ‘Supply Chain Accountability Act’ necessary”
Kim Yang-jin
Environmental pollution and worker safety issues have been raised over the past decade at Samsung’s Vietnamese factories and partner companies and Samsung Electronics has belatedly issued an official response stating that “most of the allegations are misunderstandings.” However, a local investigation conducted by groups including Supporters for the Health and Rights of People in the Semiconductor Industry (hereafter SHARPS) in January-February 2026 confirmed that Samsung Electronics' directly managed factories had outsourced severe environmental pollution to subcontractors. SHARPS stated that enacting a ‘Supply Chain Responsibility Act’ mandating human rights and environmental due diligence for suppliers is necessary to improve this situation.
Samsung Responds to UN with “Misunderstanding” Without Providing Evidence
The environmental pollution issues at Samsung Electronics' Vietnam factories came to light in June 2024 through a Hankyoreh 21 report. This followed the release of a report titled ‘Investigations by Samsung Show Irresponsible Chemicals Management and Pollution of Vietnam’s Environment’ by SHARPS in collaboration with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) and the Research Center for Gender, Family, and Environment in Development (CGFED). (See Issue 1517) The report detailed how Samsung Electronics Vietnam, which employs 100,000 people locally and exported $65 billion worth of products in 2022 (accounting for 9% of Vietnam's total exports), was failing to properly manage toxic chemicals and causing environmental pollution. Specifically, at the Bac Ninh plant—Samsung Electronics Vietnam's mobile phone manufacturing facility—issues persisted for years without immediate correction. These included the unauthorized discharge of wastewater for at least three years (2010–2013) and the release of chemicals into the atmosphere without adequate filtration for at least seven years (2010–2017). The report also included testimony from an internal whistleblower stating that in 2013, the Future Strategy Office, then Samsung Group's highest-ranking organization, sent two odor experts to the Bac Ninh factory to assess the situation, yet the problem remained unresolved for years.
Eight UN Special Rapporteurs covering various issues drafted a joint letter based on the SHARPS report, expressing their concern over “unsafe working conditions and the potential for serious human rights violations.” Samsung Electronics' Sustainability Management Center submitted a 23-page official response only two months later, on November 27, 2025. In its response, Samsung stated, “Most of the allegations are misunderstandings, and any issues that were factual were immediately rectified.” Samsung Electronics devoted a significant portion of its official response to asserting that it had not violated local Vietnamese laws and had established an environmental management system meeting global standards such as ISO 14001. Regarding its suppliers, it claimed, “We conduct regular evaluations and inspections and require corrective actions when necessary.”
In response, SHARPS countered, “The SHARPS report is largely based on Samsung Electronics' internal environmental health and safety (EHS) documents provided by public interest whistleblowers. These documents highlight issues that Samsung Electronics itself identified and acknowledged as unresolved problems, such as the absence of wastewater treatment facilities.” They added, “Samsung Electronics must specify exactly what it considers to be a misunderstanding.”
UN Special Rapporteur: “Pollution Problems Transferred to Other Places”
SHARPS conducted five on-site inspections in January and February 2026 around the Bac Ninh factory and at four first- and second-tier subcontractors to verify the contents of Samsung's official response. The investigation found that while the Bac Ninh factory, which outsourced toxic processes, showed improvement compared to the past, all four subcontractors operating toxic processes were still found to be in a state of severe air pollution, with a foul stench detected. Evidence was also found that pollution control facilities were not functioning properly, such as solid chemical substances adhering to chimney entrances. Some industrial waste was confirmed to have been dumped in open areas or burned. Evidence was also found that pollution control facilities were not functioning properly, such as solid chemical substances adhering to chimney entrances. Some industrial waste was confirmed to have been dumped in open areas or burned. Essentially, the same problems remained unresolved, merely shifting responsibility from the direct factory to the subcontractors. The UN Special Rapporteurs stated, “Instead of upgrading Bac Ninh's small-scale air pollution prevention facilities, Samsung outsourced the most toxic operations—such as plating, painting, and printing—to subcontractors in 2017 and 2018.” They pointed out, "These subcontractors generally have lower capacity and awareness regarding environmental health and safety than Samsung. This outsourcing shifted severe air pollution problems to other communities and continues to this day."
Earlier in 2023, HS Tech, a second-tier supplier to Samsung located in Bac Ninh Province, Vietnam, used methanol for cooling purposes despite Samsung Electronics' ban. This resulted in a disaster where 37 workers were poisoned, including a 42-year-old female worker who died.
Such industrial accidents consistently point to a recurring pattern of chemical disasters at supply chain partners handling the most hazardous processes. In February 2016, an accident involving methanol use at a third-tier Samsung Electronics supplier in Korea also resulted in at least six people losing their sight. Lee Sang-soo, an activist with SHARPS, stated, “While Samsung has implemented meaningful improvements since the 2018 agreement, such as introducing regulations on some toxic chemicals, dangerous tasks like facility maintenance, chemical supply, and waste disposal have mostly been shifted to subcontractors. This disperses responsibility and pushes risks further into the shadows.”
EU Mandates ‘Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence’ for Suppliers
Why does Samsung focus on disputing the facts rather than acknowledging and improving upon civil society's safety and health concerns? Kong Jeong-Ok, an activist with SHARPS (a labor rights group) and occupational medicine specialist, stated, “Unless Samsung Electronics opens its factory doors internally, it's difficult for outsiders to verify (the issues).” She added, “Regarding labor rights issues raised by the international community, they claim ‘we comply with international standards,’ but what matters isn't the ‘words’ saying there's no problem, but ‘action.’” She added, “They must start by publicly declaring that local workers will not face retaliation if they freely discuss internal working conditions with the media or others.” In fact, during the process of compiling the SHARPS report, SHARPS and others attempted to include the voices of multiple workers, but many interviews fell through due to fears of “possible retaliation.”
This atmosphere has been controversial in the past. A 2017 report by IPEN and CGFED, based on interviews with 45 female workers at the Bac Ninh factory, documented experiences of fainting or dizziness during work, frequent miscarriages, and working conditions requiring standing for 9 to 12 hours without breaks. Subsequently, allegations arose that Samsung Electronics threatened workers with dismissal or lawsuits. At the time, UN human rights experts pointed out that “threatening labor advocates and workers not only violates freedom of expression but also allows those who violate workers' rights to go unpunished.” International standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers.
Samsung's problem boils down to one word: secrecy. It hides the grim reality while proudly presenting falsely embellished results to the outside world as perfect. Samsung must now break away from its pattern of concealing and shifting blame for problems and instead strive to genuinely improve the actual situation. This is why enacting a Supply Chain Accountability Act is urgent," said activist Lee Sang-soo. The European Union (EU) and others have already enacted ‘Supply Chain Accountability Laws’ that impose obligations on companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence on their suppliers. In Korea, a related bill (the Bill on Human Rights and Environmental Protection for Corporate Sustainable Management, proposed by Representative Jeong Tae-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea) was introduced in June 2025.
One area where Samsung Electronics' ‘secrecy’ has been particularly evident is the issue of disclosing ‘chemical substance’ information, which is essential for victims of occupational diseases to prove their industrial accidents. For a long time, Samsung Electronics has restricted the disclosure of chemical substances used in semiconductor processes and workplace environment data, citing trade secrets. In February 2018, the Daejeon High Court ruled that Samsung Electronics must disclose its semiconductor factory's workplace environment measurement reports. Consequently, the Ministry of Employment and Labor issued a disclosure order. However, Samsung contested this, filing an administrative appeal in April 2018 to dispute the scope of disclosure. This led to criticism from civil society and labor groups that Samsung was attempting to block even court and government disclosure orders. When the Industrial Technology Protection Act was amended in July 2019 to restrict disclosure of ‘national core technology’ information, Samsung used the argument that ‘the working environment report contains semiconductor process information’ to block the Ministry of Employment and Labor's disclosure.
Attorney Lim Ja-woon, who has handled workers' compensation recognition lawsuits for victims of occupational diseases at Samsung Electronics semiconductor factories and other sites, stated, “For the past 20 years, Samsung's fundamental stance has been to preemptively answer ‘no’ and refuse to cooperate with investigations.” He added, “When meaningful investigation results or rulings were finally achieved with great difficulty, they distorted or ignored their significance. That attitude remains unchanged today.” He explained, "Previously, they refused to disclose workplace environment data, citing trade secrets. After the 2019 revision of the relevant Industrial Technology Protection Act, they claim they cannot disclose it because it is national core technology. They don't explain why, just assert that ‘all information about workplaces where national core technologies are operated is itself a national core technology.’“ He pointed out, ”The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has also failed to establish criteria for determining what constitutes national core technology-related information, leaving the situation where the company's position is unilaterally reflected in trials and other proceedings."
After Hwang Yu-mi's death, only the method of conveying danger changed.
March 6, 2026, marks the 19th anniversary of the passing of Samsung Electronics semiconductor worker Hwang Yu-mi. Eleven years after her death, in 2018, then-Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Kim Ki-nam apologized, stating, “We deeply regret not having sufficiently addressed occupational disease issues over the years. We failed to adequately manage health risks.” But has Samsung's work environment improved? Or has only the method of conveying risk changed?
Samsung's closed-door policy remains unchanged from a decade ago, so there's no way to know if Samsung's 2018 promises are being kept. We simply can't see what's happening inside. The crucial point is that the electronics industry will inevitably continue to grow. Korea is a society that benefits economically from this industry. I hope our society's members will not view the problems occurring in Vietnam as merely localized issues within certain sectors, but will collectively urge exemplary practices in supply chain responsibility and environmental protection." These are the words of activist Kong Jeong-Ok.
Samsung Electronics stated, "We have humbly listened to various concerns. Upon review, we confirmed that a significant portion of the claims raised were inaccurate or had already been addressed. We conduct regular environmental and safety inspections of overseas facilities and suppliers under the headquarters' supervision.“ It added, ”Specifically, SIT Vina (which faced issues over pollutant emissions) is a secondary supplier with a transaction share of about 2% with our primary suppliers in 2022. We were informed by the Vietnamese Public Security Environmental Police Department that there were no violations of regulations. Furthermore, we do not outsource (processes) solely because they involve hazardous work."
https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/economy_general/58967.html
Hankyoreh 21
6 March 2026
Samsung's ‘Secrecy’ Hidden in Vietnam Factories
Early 2026 on-site investigation confirms pollution and industrial accidents ‘outsourced’... Human rights group: “Enactment of ‘Supply Chain Accountability Act’ necessary”
Kim Yang-jin
Environmental pollution and worker safety issues have been raised over the past decade at Samsung’s Vietnamese factories and partner companies and Samsung Electronics has belatedly issued an official response stating that “most of the allegations are misunderstandings.” However, a local investigation conducted by groups including Supporters for the Health and Rights of People in the Semiconductor Industry (hereafter SHARPS) in January-February 2026 confirmed that Samsung Electronics' directly managed factories had outsourced severe environmental pollution to subcontractors. SHARPS stated that enacting a ‘Supply Chain Responsibility Act’ mandating human rights and environmental due diligence for suppliers is necessary to improve this situation.
Samsung Responds to UN with “Misunderstanding” Without Providing Evidence
The environmental pollution issues at Samsung Electronics' Vietnam factories came to light in June 2024 through a Hankyoreh 21 report. This followed the release of a report titled ‘Investigations by Samsung Show Irresponsible Chemicals Management and Pollution of Vietnam’s Environment’ by SHARPS in collaboration with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) and the Research Center for Gender, Family, and Environment in Development (CGFED). (See Issue 1517) The report detailed how Samsung Electronics Vietnam, which employs 100,000 people locally and exported $65 billion worth of products in 2022 (accounting for 9% of Vietnam's total exports), was failing to properly manage toxic chemicals and causing environmental pollution. Specifically, at the Bac Ninh plant—Samsung Electronics Vietnam's mobile phone manufacturing facility—issues persisted for years without immediate correction. These included the unauthorized discharge of wastewater for at least three years (2010–2013) and the release of chemicals into the atmosphere without adequate filtration for at least seven years (2010–2017). The report also included testimony from an internal whistleblower stating that in 2013, the Future Strategy Office, then Samsung Group's highest-ranking organization, sent two odor experts to the Bac Ninh factory to assess the situation, yet the problem remained unresolved for years.
Eight UN Special Rapporteurs covering various issues drafted a joint letter based on the SHARPS report, expressing their concern over “unsafe working conditions and the potential for serious human rights violations.” Samsung Electronics' Sustainability Management Center submitted a 23-page official response only two months later, on November 27, 2025. In its response, Samsung stated, “Most of the allegations are misunderstandings, and any issues that were factual were immediately rectified.” Samsung Electronics devoted a significant portion of its official response to asserting that it had not violated local Vietnamese laws and had established an environmental management system meeting global standards such as ISO 14001. Regarding its suppliers, it claimed, “We conduct regular evaluations and inspections and require corrective actions when necessary.”
In response, SHARPS countered, “The SHARPS report is largely based on Samsung Electronics' internal environmental health and safety (EHS) documents provided by public interest whistleblowers. These documents highlight issues that Samsung Electronics itself identified and acknowledged as unresolved problems, such as the absence of wastewater treatment facilities.” They added, “Samsung Electronics must specify exactly what it considers to be a misunderstanding.”
UN Special Rapporteur: “Pollution Problems Transferred to Other Places”
SHARPS conducted five on-site inspections in January and February 2026 around the Bac Ninh factory and at four first- and second-tier subcontractors to verify the contents of Samsung's official response. The investigation found that while the Bac Ninh factory, which outsourced toxic processes, showed improvement compared to the past, all four subcontractors operating toxic processes were still found to be in a state of severe air pollution, with a foul stench detected. Evidence was also found that pollution control facilities were not functioning properly, such as solid chemical substances adhering to chimney entrances. Some industrial waste was confirmed to have been dumped in open areas or burned. Evidence was also found that pollution control facilities were not functioning properly, such as solid chemical substances adhering to chimney entrances. Some industrial waste was confirmed to have been dumped in open areas or burned. Essentially, the same problems remained unresolved, merely shifting responsibility from the direct factory to the subcontractors. The UN Special Rapporteurs stated, “Instead of upgrading Bac Ninh's small-scale air pollution prevention facilities, Samsung outsourced the most toxic operations—such as plating, painting, and printing—to subcontractors in 2017 and 2018.” They pointed out, "These subcontractors generally have lower capacity and awareness regarding environmental health and safety than Samsung. This outsourcing shifted severe air pollution problems to other communities and continues to this day."
Earlier in 2023, HS Tech, a second-tier supplier to Samsung located in Bac Ninh Province, Vietnam, used methanol for cooling purposes despite Samsung Electronics' ban. This resulted in a disaster where 37 workers were poisoned, including a 42-year-old female worker who died.
Such industrial accidents consistently point to a recurring pattern of chemical disasters at supply chain partners handling the most hazardous processes. In February 2016, an accident involving methanol use at a third-tier Samsung Electronics supplier in Korea also resulted in at least six people losing their sight. Lee Sang-soo, an activist with SHARPS, stated, “While Samsung has implemented meaningful improvements since the 2018 agreement, such as introducing regulations on some toxic chemicals, dangerous tasks like facility maintenance, chemical supply, and waste disposal have mostly been shifted to subcontractors. This disperses responsibility and pushes risks further into the shadows.”
EU Mandates ‘Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence’ for Suppliers
Why does Samsung focus on disputing the facts rather than acknowledging and improving upon civil society's safety and health concerns? Kong Jeong-Ok, an activist with SHARPS (a labor rights group) and occupational medicine specialist, stated, “Unless Samsung Electronics opens its factory doors internally, it's difficult for outsiders to verify (the issues).” She added, “Regarding labor rights issues raised by the international community, they claim ‘we comply with international standards,’ but what matters isn't the ‘words’ saying there's no problem, but ‘action.’” She added, “They must start by publicly declaring that local workers will not face retaliation if they freely discuss internal working conditions with the media or others.” In fact, during the process of compiling the SHARPS report, SHARPS and others attempted to include the voices of multiple workers, but many interviews fell through due to fears of “possible retaliation.”
This atmosphere has been controversial in the past. A 2017 report by IPEN and CGFED, based on interviews with 45 female workers at the Bac Ninh factory, documented experiences of fainting or dizziness during work, frequent miscarriages, and working conditions requiring standing for 9 to 12 hours without breaks. Subsequently, allegations arose that Samsung Electronics threatened workers with dismissal or lawsuits. At the time, UN human rights experts pointed out that “threatening labor advocates and workers not only violates freedom of expression but also allows those who violate workers' rights to go unpunished.” International standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers.
Samsung's problem boils down to one word: secrecy. It hides the grim reality while proudly presenting falsely embellished results to the outside world as perfect. Samsung must now break away from its pattern of concealing and shifting blame for problems and instead strive to genuinely improve the actual situation. This is why enacting a Supply Chain Accountability Act is urgent," said activist Lee Sang-soo. The European Union (EU) and others have already enacted ‘Supply Chain Accountability Laws’ that impose obligations on companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence on their suppliers. In Korea, a related bill (the Bill on Human Rights and Environmental Protection for Corporate Sustainable Management, proposed by Representative Jeong Tae-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea) was introduced in June 2025.
One area where Samsung Electronics' ‘secrecy’ has been particularly evident is the issue of disclosing ‘chemical substance’ information, which is essential for victims of occupational diseases to prove their industrial accidents. For a long time, Samsung Electronics has restricted the disclosure of chemical substances used in semiconductor processes and workplace environment data, citing trade secrets. In February 2018, the Daejeon High Court ruled that Samsung Electronics must disclose its semiconductor factory's workplace environment measurement reports. Consequently, the Ministry of Employment and Labor issued a disclosure order. However, Samsung contested this, filing an administrative appeal in April 2018 to dispute the scope of disclosure. This led to criticism from civil society and labor groups that Samsung was attempting to block even court and government disclosure orders. When the Industrial Technology Protection Act was amended in July 2019 to restrict disclosure of ‘national core technology’ information, Samsung used the argument that ‘the working environment report contains semiconductor process information’ to block the Ministry of Employment and Labor's disclosure.
Attorney Lim Ja-woon, who has handled workers' compensation recognition lawsuits for victims of occupational diseases at Samsung Electronics semiconductor factories and other sites, stated, “For the past 20 years, Samsung's fundamental stance has been to preemptively answer ‘no’ and refuse to cooperate with investigations.” He added, “When meaningful investigation results or rulings were finally achieved with great difficulty, they distorted or ignored their significance. That attitude remains unchanged today.” He explained, "Previously, they refused to disclose workplace environment data, citing trade secrets. After the 2019 revision of the relevant Industrial Technology Protection Act, they claim they cannot disclose it because it is national core technology. They don't explain why, just assert that ‘all information about workplaces where national core technologies are operated is itself a national core technology.’“ He pointed out, ”The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has also failed to establish criteria for determining what constitutes national core technology-related information, leaving the situation where the company's position is unilaterally reflected in trials and other proceedings."
After Hwang Yu-mi's death, only the method of conveying danger changed.
March 6, 2026, marks the 19th anniversary of the passing of Samsung Electronics semiconductor worker Hwang Yu-mi. Eleven years after her death, in 2018, then-Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Kim Ki-nam apologized, stating, “We deeply regret not having sufficiently addressed occupational disease issues over the years. We failed to adequately manage health risks.” But has Samsung's work environment improved? Or has only the method of conveying risk changed?
Samsung's closed-door policy remains unchanged from a decade ago, so there's no way to know if Samsung's 2018 promises are being kept. We simply can't see what's happening inside. The crucial point is that the electronics industry will inevitably continue to grow. Korea is a society that benefits economically from this industry. I hope our society's members will not view the problems occurring in Vietnam as merely localized issues within certain sectors, but will collectively urge exemplary practices in supply chain responsibility and environmental protection." These are the words of activist Kong Jeong-Ok.
Samsung Electronics stated, "We have humbly listened to various concerns. Upon review, we confirmed that a significant portion of the claims raised were inaccurate or had already been addressed. We conduct regular environmental and safety inspections of overseas facilities and suppliers under the headquarters' supervision.“ It added, ”Specifically, SIT Vina (which faced issues over pollutant emissions) is a secondary supplier with a transaction share of about 2% with our primary suppliers in 2022. We were informed by the Vietnamese Public Security Environmental Police Department that there were no violations of regulations. Furthermore, we do not outsource (processes) solely because they involve hazardous work."