• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2021

KHNP's shared growth activities are based on such public good. Reflecting the characteristics of a comprehensive energy company, a high-tech plant company, and a leading company for shared growth, it presents strategies to link performance indicators with its partners and implements various measures. Key tasks include maintaining the nuclear power plant ecosystem, improving management conditions for partner companies, strengthening future capabilities of the nuclear power plant industry, and supporting a virtuous cycle of regional development. This is made by reflecting the specificity of nuclear power generation as much as possible, and is designed to reflect the spirit of shared growth through win-win and cooperation in order to solve the challenges of the times while considering the characteristics as much as possible as possible. KHNP's shared growth activities can be said to be the practice of the spirit of the times(Zeitgeist). The spirit of the times given to us now is that companies should strive for sustainable growth as social air. KHNP has been striving to establish a creative and leading shared growth ecosystem. In particular, considering the positions of partners, it has been promoting continuous system improvement to establish a fair trade culture and deregulation. In addition, it has continuously discovered and implemented new customized support projects that are effective for partner companies and local communities. To this end, efforts have been made for shared growth through organic collaboration with partners and stakeholders. As detailed tasks, it also presents fostering new markets and new industries, maintaining supply chains, and emergency support for COVID-19 to maintain the nuclear power plant ecosystem. This reflects the social public good after the recent COVID-19 incident. In order to improve the management conditions of partner companies, productivity improvement, human resources enhancement, and customized funding are being implemented as detailed tasks. This is a plan to practice win-win growth with partner companies emphasized by corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ISO 26000 while being faithful to the main job. Until now, ESG management has focused on the environmental field to cope with the catastrophe of climate change. According to KHNP is presenting a public enterprise-type model in the environmental field. In order to strengthen the future capabilities of the nuclear power plant industry as a state-of-the-art energy company, it has set tasks to attract investment from partner companies, localization and new technologies R&D, and commercialization of innovative technologies. This is an effort to develop advanced nuclear power plant technology as a concrete practical measure of eco-friendly development. Meanwhile, the EU is preparing a social taxonomy to focus on the social sector, another important axis in ESG management, following the Green Taxonomy, a classification system in the environmental sector. KHNP includes enhancing local vitality, increasing income for the underprivileged, and overcoming the COVID-19 crisis as part of its shared growth activities, which is a representative social taxonomy field. The draft social taxonomy being promoted by the EU was announced in July, and the contents promoted by KHNP are consistent with this, leading the practice of social taxonomy

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.