China's 996 vs. South Korea's 52-Hour Work Week

The Global Tech Landscape and Work Culture

As the world progresses rapidly in deep tech – encompassing fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and quantum computing – innovation is increasingly recognized as a primary driver of power. This has led to heightened workloads and more demanding work environments for many organizations. However, a significant challenge arises: companies are hesitant to reduce their efforts when global competitors are intensifying their own.

The "996" Culture and International Comparisons

Reports of the demanding “996” work culture – a schedule of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, totaling 72 hours weekly – spreading from China to Silicon Valley prompted an examination of work hour regulations and workplace norms within the technology sector across different nations. Particular interest was given to the situation in South Korea, where I am currently located.

South Korea’s Approach to Working Hours

In South Korea, the typical workweek is set at 40 hours, with a potential for up to 12 hours of overtime, compensated at a rate of 1.5 times the standard wage or higher. Companies found in violation of these regulations face potential penalties, including fines, imprisonment of executives, and civil lawsuits.

Implementation of the 52-Hour Workweek

The 52-hour workweek, initially implemented in 2018 for larger companies with over 300 employees and public sector organizations, was progressively extended to encompass all businesses. It became fully effective on January 1, 2025.

Temporary Extensions and Future Regulations

Earlier this year, South Korea introduced a temporary program allowing employees to exceed the 52-hour weekly limit, subject to both employee consent and governmental authorization, up to a maximum of 64 hours. Approval periods for deep tech industries, such as semiconductors, were temporarily lengthened from three to six months, although reports indicate limited company participation. The South Korean government intends to reduce these exemptions and reinforce working hour regulations, despite some legislative arguments suggesting the current guidelines are adequate.

Investor and Founder Perspectives on the 52-Hour Limit

TechCrunch consulted with several technology investors and founders in South Korea to understand how the 52-hour workweek impacts their businesses and research and development (R&D) initiatives as they strive to compete on a global scale.

Challenges in Deep Tech Investment

“The 52-hour workweek presents a considerable obstacle when evaluating investment opportunities in deep tech sectors,” stated Yongkwan Lee, CEO of Bluepoint Partners, a South Korean venture capital firm. “This is especially pertinent when considering investments in highly competitive areas like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. Labor-related difficulties are particularly pronounced in these fields, where founders and teams frequently encounter substantial workloads and extended hours during crucial growth stages.”

Impact on Business Milestones

Lee explained that Bluepoint’s early-stage investments are often made before technologies are fully refined or products are ready for the market. Consequently, strict limitations on working hours could potentially affect the speed at which key business objectives are achieved.

Employee Willingness to Work Additional Hours

According to local reports, 70.4% of employees in South Korean startup companies expressed a willingness to work an additional 52 hours per week, provided they receive appropriate compensation.

A Restriction Rather Than Protection

Bohyung Kim, CTO of LeMong, a South Korean startup supported by LG Uplus that provides agentic AI solutions to over 13,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the food and beverage industry, conveyed that the country’s 52-hour workweek system often feels more restrictive than protective.

The Importance of Flow and Creativity

“Engineers are dedicated to discovering practical solutions to intricate problems,” Kim said. “Our work is not defined by completing predetermined tasks within fixed timeframes. It centers on leveraging creativity and focused concentration to overcome challenges and generate new value. When inspiration strikes or a technical breakthrough occurs, the concept of time becomes irrelevant. Forcing a halt at such a moment disrupts the flow and can actually diminish efficiency.”

Differentiated Standards for Different Roles

Kim added that while intense focus is essential during project deadlines or algorithm refinement, rigid legal limits can sometimes be obstructive, depending on the specific engineering role. “There’s a distinction between production roles in manufacturing and R&D positions. In manufacturing, productivity is directly tied to working hours, necessitating consideration of industrial safety. Overtime should also be justly compensated.”

Monthly Averages and Flexibility

Huiyong Lee, co-founder of LeMong, which develops comment management software, suggested that calculating a monthly average would be more practical than strictly adhering to the 52-hour weekly limit. He observed that work intensity often fluctuates based on the R&D stage and project timelines in deep tech companies.

Balancing Intensity and Efficiency

“For companies like ours, intensive development is often required for approximately two weeks before a product launch, after which the workload decreases once the product is stable,” Lee said. “A system allowing monthly flexibility would enable us to work around 60 hours per week before a launch and 40 hours afterward, maintaining a 52-hour average while ensuring operational efficiency. I also believe it’s worthwhile to consider different standards for deep tech and R&D-focused companies. Furthermore, for startups with fewer than 10–20 employees, it’s crucial to establish more flexible criteria to accommodate their unique operational requirements.”

Performance and Hours Worked

Kim also pointed out a correlation between performance and hours worked, noting that high-performing team members often dedicate more time to their work. However, these top performers prioritize achieving results and advancing within the company rather than seeking rewards for extra hours.

Motivation and Recognition

“Engineers are more motivated to engage when their efforts are acknowledged, whether through performance bonuses, stock options, or recognition of their technical contributions,” Kim said. “In high-tech, R&D, and IT industries, and in globally competitive firms where technical expertise is paramount, decisions regarding flexible work hours should be guided by market principles.”

Limited Impact on Investment Decisions

Another Seoul-based venture capitalist, who invests in startups, minimized the impact of the 52-hour workweek limit on investment decisions.

Current Monitoring Practices

“Currently, there don’t appear to be significant concerns. While it’s difficult to foresee how labor regulations or monitoring practices might evolve, many venture companies today do not rigorously track employees’ working hours. To my understanding, there’s no current requirement for companies to submit formal proof that employees adhere to the 52-hour weekly limit.”

Compliance and Self-Motivation

The VC noted that if an employee were to file a complaint, the lack of detailed time records could raise compliance issues. However, most R&D or deep tech firms typically employ highly self-motivated professionals who manage their schedules responsibly, making such cases relatively uncommon.

Greater Challenges in Labor-Intensive Industries

The greater challenge likely resides in more labor-intensive industries, such as logistics, delivery, or manufacturing, where a substantial portion of workers earn near the minimum wage. “In those sectors, the 52-hour workweek regulation can significantly increase labor costs due to mandatory overtime pay and paid leave. Consequently, maintaining productivity and achieving economies of scale can become more challenging for businesses operating with narrow margins,” this investor concluded.

Global Perspectives on Working Hours

A comparative analysis of working hour regulations in leading tech hubs is crucial to contextualize South Korea’s 52-hour workweek limit. This examination reveals the diverse approaches taken worldwide and the pressures faced by technology companies.

Countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, and France generally adhere to standard workweeks spanning 33 to 48 hours. Australia and Canada maintain a standard workweek of 38 and 40 hours, respectively, incorporating mandatory overtime compensation to ensure a balance between employee rights and operational needs.

The United States operates under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), establishing a 40-hour workweek as the norm. Employees classified as nonexempt receive overtime pay at a rate of one and a half times their regular wage, with no statutory cap on total working hours. However, California’s regulations stipulate double-time pay for specific overtime scenarios.

China’s standard work schedule mirrors many nations at 40 hours weekly, or 8 hours daily. Overtime work is compensated at elevated rates, specifically 150% of the standard wage on weekdays, 200% on weekends, and 300% during public holidays. Japan’s standard workweek is also 40 hours, but it includes limitations on overtime, capped at 45 hours monthly and 370 hours annually under typical conditions.

Singapore’s workweek extends to 44 hours, allowing for a maximum of 72 overtime hours each month. This equates to approximately 62 hours per week when distributed consistently. Overtime pay structures follow a similar pattern: 1.5 times the regular rate for weekdays, 2 times for rest days, and 3 times for public holidays.

South Korea’s 52-hour limit occupies a middle ground within this international framework. It is more restrictive than the systems in the U.S. and Singapore, yet offers greater flexibility compared to many European nations. For deep tech entrepreneurs engaged in global competition, the central concern isn’t solely the numerical limit, but rather the capacity of such constraints to accommodate the demanding and irregular workflows inherent in early-stage research and development.