Korea’s Arctic shipping ambitions face renewed skepticism
Debate reignited as HMM union protests relocation
A banner showing the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries' commitment to leading the development of Arctic shipping routes hangs at the ministry's headquarters in Busan, Dec. 23, 2025. Joint Press Corps
Controversy over Korea’s plan to use Arctic shipping routes is resurfacing, as HMM employees question its feasibility while protesting the government’s attempt to relocate the shipping company’s headquarters from Seoul to Busan.
Ahead of the June 3 local elections and the appointment of a new oceans and fisheries minister, the government is expected to face growing challenges to the plan, a key reason President Lee Jae Myung has pushed to move the ministry and major shipping firms to the southeastern port city.
Although the government has stressed the need to take preemptive steps to secure a competitive edge in developing shorter alternatives to the Suez Canal for Asia-Europe trade, opponents have pointed to the global reluctance to use Arctic routes.
“As shipping industry insiders, we are well aware that the diplomatic and economic feasibilities of Arctic shipping routes have not yet been verified,” an HMM union member said during a rally in front of the company’s headquarters on March 11.
The HMM union cited major global shipping companies that have pledged not to use Arctic routes, citing environmental protection and the safety of crewmembers and vessels.
HMM employees hold a rally in front of the shipping firm's headquarters in Seoul, March 11, to protest the government's attempts to move its headquarters to Busan. Courtesy of Korean Finance & Service Workers' Union
Earlier this year, Mediterranean Shipping Co. CEO Soren Toft reaffirmed that the world’s leading container shipping company would not use the Northern Sea Route, one of three Arctic routes controlled by Russia.
“Safe navigation cannot be assured. The risks for crews remain too high. And increased traffic would put additional pressure on fragile ecosystems and local communities,” he said.
CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd have made similar commitments, while Maersk has vowed to avoid regular Arctic operations after a one-off trial in 2018. Last year, the Clean Arctic Alliance and other environmental groups criticized China for its plan to transport cargo regularly through the North Pole.
In Korea, the Paran Ocean Citizen Science Center urged the government to prioritize marine conservation rather than awaiting global warming for Arctic shipping.
“Despite the government’s aggressive policies, shipping firms appear to be closely monitoring the profitability and sustainability of Arctic routes,” the civic group said. “Although global shipping firms publicly cite environmental protection as their reason for rejection, their main concerns are cost and political uncertainty.”
In response, former Oceans and Fisheries Minister Chun Jae-soo, who is now running for Busan mayor, claimed that global shipping companies were actually buying icebreakers to prepare for competition to dominate Arctic trade lanes.
The government has also emphasized that Arctic routes could significantly shorten Asia-Europe voyages compared with the Suez Canal.
On March 12, Russia’s state-run nuclear energy company Rosatom announced that Korea joined China and India in developing the Northern Sea Route.
Still, the ministry recognized potential challenges in cooperating with Russia due to Western sanctions. The ministry also admitted that Arctic routes may not be economically viable until economies of scale are achieved after commercial operations begin.
Against this backdrop, HMM is reportedly struggling to respond to government pressure to participate in a trial voyage of a 3,000-TEU container ship from Busan to Rotterdam via the North Pole in September.