In mid-November, South Korea's leading business federation asked the country to reckon with growth as seriously as it reckons with control. Drawing on Britain's emerging Regulatory Bill for Growth, the Federation of Korean Industries argues that every new rule should be measured against its effect on investment, innovation, and the entry of new firms into markets. Beneath the proposal lies a quieter disappointment: sandboxes meant to let innovations breathe have opened many doors but led to few lasting changes in the rules themselves. Whether Seoul follows London's lead will depend partly on w
South Korean Industry Group Urges Growth-Impact Tests in Regulation, Citing UK Reform Bill
Only 617 of 2,526 sandbox projects led to real regulatory change.
Mark
What is the FKI actually asking for?
Mimi
A new line in regulatory review. Alongside the need for a rule, officials would assess its effect on investment, innovation, and market entry.
Mark
Why look to Britain?
Mimi
Britain is moving from a duty to consider growth, set in 2015, to a duty to actively support it, while keeping safety, environmental, and consumer duties.
Luke
Worth noting that the British bill hasn't been formally introduced yet. It's a proposal being copied from a proposal.
Mark
And the Korean numbers?
Mimi
2,526 sandbox projects approved, 617 leading to regulatory change. That's 24.4%, from the government's own white paper.
Luke
The figure is solid, but it doesn't say why the rest didn't convert. Some may have been unsuitable for change, and the report doesn't separate those.
Mark
So what would the new indicators change?
Mimi
They'd measure completed revisions, market launches, time taken, and whether businesses survive after exceptions end, rather than just approvals.
Luke
Keep in mind who's speaking. The FKI is an industry group, and this is its argument, not a government plan.
Mimi
True, and nothing here says Seoul has agreed to any of the four tasks.
Le Pouls
- The Federation of Korean Industries is pushing for growth-impact assessments to sit beside safety and need-based reviews in every regulatory decision.
- Only 617 of 2,526 approved regulatory sandbox projects, roughly one in four, ever produced an actual rule change, leaving innovators stranded when temporary exemptions expire.
- The UK's bill would force regulators to actively support growth and report their results, while the FKI wants phased adoption in Korean ministries tied to new industries.
- Proposed fixes include deadlines for interministerial disputes, public tracking of statutory revision delays, and sandbox metrics that count completed revisions and market launches rather than approvals.
- The debate now hinges on whether the British bill clears Parliament, which could give Seoul a concrete model to follow.
In mid-November, South Korea's leading business federation asked the country to reckon with growth as seriously as it reckons with control. Drawing on Britain's emerging Regulatory Bill for Growth, the Federation of Korean Industries argues that every new rule should be measured against its effect on investment, innovation, and the entry of new firms into markets. Beneath the proposal lies a quieter disappointment: sandboxes meant to let innovations breathe have opened many doors but led to few lasting changes in the rules themselves. Whether Seoul follows London's lead will depend partly on what Parliament decides in the months ahead.
On the 15th, the Federation of Korean Industries released a report on Britain's Regulatory Bill for Growth and proposed that South Korea add a growth-impact assessment to its regulatory reviews. Under this idea, officials would measure how a new or tightened rule affects investment, innovation, and the ability of new companies to enter a market, weighing those effects alongside the reasons for regulation itself.
The model comes from the UK, where the government made the bill a priority in May. Britain had already asked regulators to consider growth through its 2015 Deregulation Act, but critics found that wording too weak to change decisions. The new bill would require regulators to actively support growth, while keeping protections for safety, the environment, and consumers, and to report what they did.
The FKI's deeper complaint concerns Korea's own sandboxes, which have operated in eight sectors since 2019. Of 2,526 approved projects, only 617 led to real regulatory change. The federation calls for phased growth duties, firm follow-through on proven projects, coordinated management across ministries, and success measured by outcomes rather than approvals. As Lee Sang-ho of the FKI put it, demonstrations must quickly become law so that companies do not lose the momentum of innovation.
On the 15th, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) published a report titled "Key Contents and Implications of the UK's Regulatory Bill for Growth." It proposes that South Korea add a separate growth-impact assessment to its regulatory impact analysis, one that measures what a new or strengthened rule does to investment, innovation, and market entry.
The report draws its model from Britain. According to the FKI, the UK government made the Regulatory Bill for Growth a core legislative task in the King's Speech in May. As of this month the bill is still before formal introduction in Parliament. Its aim is to place a duty on regulators to support economic growth.
Britain is not starting from zero. Its 2015 Deregulation Act already required regulators to consider promoting growth when carrying out their work. The criticism, as the report describes it, was that "considering" growth was a weak standard and did little to change what regulators actually decided. The new bill raises the obligation so that regulators must actively support growth, while leaving existing duties on safety, the environment, and consumer protection in place. The minister of the relevant department would issue statutory strategic guidance setting out growth and innovation directions, and regulators would have to report on the steps they took and the results.
The bill also introduces a regulatory sandbox that is not tied to any one industry. Relevant rules are temporarily lifted so companies can test new technologies and products in the real market. Once safety and effectiveness are confirmed, the arrangement is turned into a permanent framework through legislative amendment. The cited application areas are autonomous ships, artificial intelligence, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and delivery robots. For AI, an "AI Growth Lab" involving several regulators is planned, and certifications and approvals obtained abroad would be recognized quickly to cut duplicate reviews.
The FKI notes that South Korea has run regulatory sandboxes in eight sectors since 2019, widening the chances to demonstrate new technologies and services. Its complaint is about what happens afterward. The government's 2025 Regulatory Reform White Paper shows 2,526 sandbox projects approved through last year, but only 617 of them, or 24.4%, led to real regulatory improvements such as statutory amendments or authoritative interpretations.
From that gap the FKI draws four priority tasks. The first is a phased growth duty for regulators, starting with ministries tied to new industries, together with a growth-impact item in regulatory impact analysis so that investment, innovation, and market entry are weighed alongside the need for regulation. The second is stronger follow-through on projects whose safety and commercial viability have been proven: the relevant ministry would regularly check progress on statutory revision plans and disclose the reasons for delays and the follow-up schedule, and demonstration results would be shared with the National Assembly. The third is integrated management of projects spanning several ministries, with a coordination deadline when disagreements drag on. The fourth is a rewrite of sandbox performance indicators, moving from counting approvals to measuring outcomes: the share of completed revisions, the share reaching formal market launch, the average time revisions take, and how many businesses continue after their special exceptions end.
Lee Sang-ho, head of the FKI's Economic Policy Division, said Korea too must view regulation from the standpoint of growth rather than control. He added that demonstration results must quickly become statutory revisions so companies do not lose the speed of innovation.
The concern underneath is that the sandbox works as a window for demonstration but, once the special exceptions lapse, companies hit the same barriers again at commercialization. If the British bill materializes, the discussion in Seoul on explicitly weighing growth effects during regulatory review is expected to gain momentum.
Citations marquantes
We too must view regulation from the perspective of growth, not control.— Lee Sang-ho, head of FKI's Economic Policy Division
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur BigGo Finance ↗