When it comes to AI regulation, many people probably think of the EU’s strict laws first. When I saw the news that the South Korean government had finalized seven principles regarding AI ethics in August 2026, I braced myself, assuming that EU-style regulations were coming.
However, when the lid was lifted, the path South Korea chose was that of ‘voluntary guidelines without penalties.’ This position is close to Japan’s AI business guidelines, and it is a development that cannot be dismissed as someone else’s problem.
In this article, I will organize, from my own perspective, what the content of South Korea’s seven principles is, why they chose the form of voluntary guidelines rather than legal regulation, and what we working in Japan should prepare for based on that.
South Korea chose ‘voluntary guidelines’ rather than ‘regulation’
In August 2026, the South Korean government officially announced ethical principles related to AI development and utilization. The pillars consist of seven principles, including ‘human-centered’ and ‘fairness,’ which summarize the attitudes required of AI developers, providers, and users, respectively.
What I personally found interesting here is not the content of the principles themselves, but their ‘positioning.’ The government clearly presented these not as legally binding regulations, but as guidelines for companies to work on voluntarily. In other words, there are no fines or punishments if they are not followed.
The content of the 7 principles is not novel, but the way they are arranged has meaning
Specifically, the seven are: not undermining human dignity or autonomy, not creating unfair discrimination against specific groups, transparency and accountability, ensuring safety and security, privacy protection, consideration for society and the environment, and cooperation with diverse stakeholders.
Honestly, these values are not significantly different from those already discussed in the OECD AI Principles or the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI. It is not that new concepts have emerged. That is precisely why I think the focus should be on the policy judgment part—the form in which South Korea launched this at this timing—rather than the ‘content’.
Why voluntary guidelines instead of legal regulation?
The background is likely a tug-of-war between industrial development and risk management. If strong legal regulations are introduced in a hurry, it could affect the development speed and costs of domestic companies, potentially putting them at a disadvantage in international competition. On the other hand, risks such as deepfakes, misinformation, and privacy infringement cannot be ignored.
The form of voluntary guidelines has advantages such as avoiding the problem of legal amendments failing to keep up with technological evolution, allowing companies to adjust their responses according to the magnitude of their own risks, and making it easier for the government and industry to build a cooperative relationship without conflict. However, since there are no penalties, the deterrent effect when businesses appear that disregard the principles becomes weaker. This issue of effectiveness will likely be supplemented in the future by mechanisms such as compliance status evaluations and voluntary certification by industry associations.
Two ways of thinking seen from the differences with the EU AI Act
Global AI governance is broadly divided into ‘legal regulation types’ and ‘voluntary regulation types.’ The EU adopted a legal regulation type that classifies AI systems by the magnitude of risk, imposes documentation obligations on high-risk systems, and imposes heavy fines for violations.
In contrast, the United States, Japan, and now South Korea, take the position of leaving it to the voluntary efforts of the industry while presenting principles and guidelines. Japan’s AI business guidelines are also a framework that does not have legal binding force, so South Korea has effectively chosen an approach close to that of Japan.
What I want to be careful about here is the point that just because it is a voluntary regulation type, it does not mean that ‘nothing needs to be done domestically.’ If a company has a market overseas, it may be subject to legal regulations like the EU AI Act depending on its business partners and markets, and if it only uses its own country’s voluntary guidelines as a standard, it could be caught off guard.
Things Japanese companies should do while they can
If you think about South Korea’s moves by relating them to your own work rather than ending it as an ‘overseas story,’ the things you should prepare for are surprisingly simple.
-
Summarize basic policies regarding AI use in a document and create a system where management is involved.
-
Identify operations where AI judgments could affect human rights or safety, such as recruitment screening, credit screening, and medical-related tasks.
-
Maintain a process where humans perform final checks according to the level of risk.
-
Retain generative AI usage logs and the basis for decisions for a certain period so that you can respond when an explanation is requested.
These are foundational elements that overlap with the requirements of South Korea’s 7 principles and the EU AI Act. Considering that this is an investment that will not be wasted regardless of which regulatory approach becomes mainstream, I see little reason to put it off.
How will voluntary guidelines change in the future?
Looking at the movements in various countries, it seems we are heading toward a hybrid model that combines both, rather than a binary choice of ‘regulation or voluntary.’ The direction is to first encourage industry autonomy through principles and guidelines, and then layer on legal regulations only in areas where significant risks are a concern, such as facial recognition, election-related information, and medical diagnosis. Regarding South Korea, it has also been pointed out that legal regulations may be considered for specific high-risk areas in the future.
I feel that rather than postponing action just because there are no penalties, preparing your system early in anticipation of future legal regulation will ultimately be the most cost-effective choice.
Summary
While the content of the 7 AI ethics principles finalized by the South Korean government does not differ significantly from values shared internationally, it is characterized by its clear positioning as ‘voluntary guidelines rather than legal regulation.’ This is a self-regulatory approach similar to Japan’s AI Business Guidelines, and it is a path that contrasts with the legal regulatory model like the EU AI Act.
Just because there are no penalties does not mean you can put off responding; situations where business partners and investors ask about your status regarding AI ethics are already increasing. Why not start by documenting your company’s AI usage policy and identifying tasks that could affect human rights and safety?
I explain this in more detail on the blog.
South Korea’s 7 AI Ethics Principles: The Aim of Voluntary Guidelines and Lessons for Companies
