Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Poster #72 - Labor Resilience through Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: A Case Study of South Korea’s Coal Phase-Out

Saturday, November 15, 12:00 to 1:30pm, Property: Hyatt Regency Seattle, Floor: 7th Floor, Room: 710 - Regency Ballroom

Abstract

The accelerating coal phase-out demands policy frameworks that curb carbon emissions while safeguarding the workers and communities whose livelihoods hinge on fossil-fuel industries. Recent policy rollbacks and rising public opposition in Europe and the United States shows that narrowly framed energy policies can exacerbate unemployment, erode working conditions, and deepen the social trauma of job loss, especially for subcontracted or otherwise precarious labor. Designing transformative and resilient solutions for a sustainable future therefore demands rigorous scrutiny of how current energy policies allocate burdens and benefits, and of how such choices shape overall policy effectiveness.


While collaborative governance involving multiple stakeholders, such as governments, firms, labor unions, is increasingly advocated over technocratic and compensatory models for coal phase-outs, three analytical gaps persist. First, many studies fail to recognize the internal heterogeneity within affected labor groups; factors such as subcontracting status, specific job roles, and seniority differentiate workers’ capacity to engage in collaboration. Second, research mainly focuses on final policy tools (e.g., compensation funds) rather than the process of governance unfolding over time. Third, empirical analysis predominantly draws from Western contexts, leaving the implications for labor resilience under different institutional arrangements, such as those in East Asia, underexplored.


This article addresses those lacunae by investigating the experiences of subcontracted workers in South Korea’s planned coal phase-out. Although subcontractors account for approximately 38 percent of the workforce in coal-fired power generation, they hold the most precarious positions within the country’s highly segmented labor market, contending with hazardous tasks, lower wages, and job insecurity. Despite the government’s pledge in 2021 to pursue an inclusive, collaborative energy transition that would ensure no workers lose jobs, these workers have remained invisible in the policy process. Our case centers on the impending decommissioning of the world’s second-largest coal-power complex in Taean, where phased closures will begin in late 2025.


Employing the theoretical framework of collaborative governance, we argue that the marginalization experienced by subcontracted workers stems not from the coal phase-out itself, but from governance deficits across agenda-setting, policymaking, and implementation stages. This can lead to what we term a “pseudo-collaboration,” wherein stakeholder engagement lacks the substantive inclusion and influence that characterize “true collaboration.” Specifically, we find that subcontracted workers are barred from early deliberations, receive critical information only belatedly, and are consistently overshadowed by expert and industry voices. As a result, temporal and procedural biases concentrate harms on those with the least organizational power, while the absence of accountability or redress mechanisms entrenches their vulnerability. This procedural marginalization prevents the formulation of effective measures for their post-transition livelihoods.


Our findings contribute to scholarship by demonstrating how the design and practice of collaboration decisively shape the effectiveness of coal phase-out policies and influence labor resilience. Moving beyond evaluating isolated instruments like job-relocation quotas, we highlight the critical need to analyze the sequencing, timing, and inclusiveness of collaborative governance processes. The study underscores the importance of developing adaptive and genuinely deliberative institutions that provide marginalized actors, like subcontracted workers, with meaningful influence throughout every stage of policy process.

Author