This year, executives from the distribution and food industries are set to appear before the National Assembly for the government’s audit. Key issues include the corporate rehabilitation of Homeplus, trading practices on online platforms, data privacy breaches, and the food raw materials market.
However, each year, the focus during these hearings often shifts from 'what will be asked' to 'who has been summoned.' The spectacle of corporate leaders and CEOs being called to testify and facing strong reprimands has become a recurring theme in these sessions.
The Homeplus situation exemplifies this. The National Assembly's Committee on Trade, Industry, Energy, and Small and Medium Enterprises has selected Kim Byung-joo, chairman of MBK Partners, as a witness for the audit of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups on October 7. Key topics of inquiry will include the impact on merchants and the support for emergency management stabilization funds.
Kim recently submitted a letter indicating he would not attend. While his attendance is a point of interest, the National Assembly must focus on Homeplus's normalization plans and measures to protect partner companies and merchants.
The Political Affairs Committee will also hear from Jo Joo-yeon, CEO of Homeplus, along with Joo Sung-won, vice president of Coupang, and Oh Jin-seok, vice president of GS Retail. Jo will be questioned about corporate rehabilitation, Joo about the transfer of costs related to 'price-matching coupons,' and Oh regarding GS25's supply methods.
The Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee will summon Brett Anthony Mathis, Coupang's Chief Information Security Officer, to discuss data management and measures to prevent recurrence of breaches.
The Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs Committee has selected Cho Young-sik, vice president of CJ CheilJedang, and Lee Un-ik, CEO of Samyang Corporation, as witnesses. Key issues will include unfair trading practices and pricing structures in the food raw materials market, as well as measures to prevent recurrence.
The selection of corporate witnesses has sparked controversy during the National Assembly hearings for years. It has become common for CEOs to be called in only to face brief questioning or interruptions during their responses. The practice of keeping them waiting for hours only to conduct short inquiries raises questions about whether this aligns with the purpose of the government audit.
The National Assembly hearings are not meant to be a platform for reprimanding business leaders. They are intended to audit the work of the executive branch and public institutions, ensuring that policies and systems affecting citizens' lives are functioning properly. If private sector leaders are called as witnesses, there should be clear reasons and specific questions.
While corporate executives must provide responsible explanations for issues with significant social impact, the role of the National Assembly extends beyond merely extracting apologies. It should thoroughly investigate the causes of problems and seek solutions.
If the focus of questioning is clear, there is no need for harsh reprimands or to publicly shame business leaders. More importantly, the aftermath of the hearings matters. If witnesses respond with commitments to 'review' or 'make efforts' without any follow-up on actual changes, the effectiveness of the hearings will inevitably diminish.
It is essential to check how promises and improvement plans discussed during the hearings are implemented in practice to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in the following year's hearings.
Every year, as the hearings commence, concerns arise about whether they will devolve into mere reprimands. The National Assembly can easily dispel these worries by focusing on asking necessary questions and obtaining specific answers, rather than competing over how many business leaders were summoned or how strongly they were reprimanded.
The success of the National Assembly hearings should not be measured by how many times business leaders bowed their heads, but rather by the answers obtained to questions of public interest and whether those answers lead to real change. This year, as distribution CEOs line up to testify, there is hope that the hearings will yield answers rather than just reprimands.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.