A corporation is often described as one of capitalism’s most consequential inventions. The first modern joint-stock company emerged in 1602: the Dutch East India Co., a spearhead of the colonial era. Two pillars defined the model — limited liability, which caps responsibility at the amount invested, and dividends, a mechanism for sharing profits. With the rise of stock exchanges, corporations flourished. Today, companies such as Nvidia and Apple have market values that exceed the GDP of many countries.
In South Korea’s less-than-century-long history of capitalism, corporations have also been central to modernization and industrialization. Many entrepreneurs raised seed money through corporate structures and built companies that way. Samsung Electronics stands as the best-known example, growing in about 50 years into the country’s largest company, with a market capitalization of about 1,300 trillion won.
As corporations and shareholder capitalism developed, one question kept resurfacing: Who owns the company? In the United States, the answer was settled long ago — shareholders are the owners. Under that model, a company’s goal is to maximize shareholder value, and executives, including the CEO, act as agents for shareholders. Economist Milton Friedman’s line that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” became a key intellectual foundation.
In South Korea, however, ownership has often been treated as shared. For years, the “owner” of a company was widely equated with the founding family. Small shareholders were often treated as owners only during the annual shareholders meeting season in March. At times, labor unions have stepped forward as if they were owners. The government has also tried to play that role. A prominent example was the “excess profit-sharing” proposal raised in 2011 by Chung Un-chan, head of the Commission for Shared Growth and a former Seoul National University president. The idea was to have large conglomerates that earned big profits share some of them with partner firms. Then-Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee pushed back sharply, calling it “something you don’t even learn in economics,” fueling a broader debate.
Recent friction surrounding Samsung Electronics has revived the same argument. The company’s union has warned it will launch a general strike in May. If it happens, it would be the first strike in Samsung Electronics’ history. The union says employees should receive a larger share of the company’s performance gains. Some minority shareholders have begun organizing in response. A group of Samsung Electronics shareholders held a rally opposing a strike, arguing that large performance bonuses could reduce shareholder returns such as dividends.
The government has also weighed in. Industry and Trade Minister Kim Jung-kwan said, “It is worth thinking about whether Samsung Electronics’ performance is truly the result only of management and workers.” While framed as concern about a strike, the remark could also be read as suggesting the company’s success includes contributions from the state, society and partner firms.
With multiple groups seeking to assert a claim over the company, Samsung’s management faces competing demands. The semiconductor business posted losses as recently as two years ago. Samsung has since climbed onto an AI-driven semiconductor “super cycle,” but conditions can change quickly. The company needs a strategy that pours large sums into facilities and research and development while also building reserves. Yet minority shareholders are pressing for bigger dividends, the union is demanding a larger share of gains, and there is also quiet pressure from the government to expand social responsibilities such as jobs and corporate giving.
So who owns Samsung Electronics? Is it Samsung Life Insurance, the company’s largest shareholder, or Chairman Lee Jae-yong? Is it the workforce of 128,200 employees? Or the 4.2 million individual shareholders recognized under the law? What about a government that changes every five years? One point is clear: the “true owner” should be whoever bears responsibility for Samsung’s future and sustainable growth. A union focused only on immediate distribution, or short-term investors chasing capital gains, cannot reasonably be called the owner.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.