[Reporter's Notebook] Coupang, a Regular at Parliamentary Audits, Offers Explanations but No Accountability

Coupang: The gains from fast-delivery innovation
are no excuse to shirk social responsibility

"Who makes the company's decisions?"

Questions from Lee Kang-il of the Democratic Party of Korea continued during the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee audit on October 12. He asked who had decided to reject an on-site inspection by the Korea Fair Trade Commission and decline a compensation mediation proposal for victims of a personal information leak. He also asked whether Coupang CEO Harold Rogers or Coupang Inc. Chairman Bom Kim had been involved. Joo Sung-won, Coupang's executive vice president, who was seated in the witness stand, repeatedly replied that the decision had been made "after in-depth internal discussions." Lee rebuked him, saying, "It seems you are not in a position to give an answer for which you can be held accountable."

Coupang has become a regular guest at parliamentary audits. Year after year, it has appeared before lawmakers amid controversies over worker overwork, industrial accidents, and unfair business practices. The issues under scrutiny may differ, but the company's response has not changed much. It has offered vigorous explanations and rebuttals, yet failed to give clear answers when asked who was responsible. This year was no exception.

The Korea Fair Trade Commission sought to conduct an on-site inspection to determine whether Coupang had unfairly shifted the cost of discounts on price-matching coupons to suppliers. Coupang, however, challenged the advance-notice procedure and blocked investigators from entering. Executive Vice President Joo argued that the company was acting to protect its procedural rights. Companies, of course, have the right to challenge government investigations. But in the meantime, the investigation into the allegations was delayed. In September 2026, a court rejected Coupang's application to suspend enforcement, giving greater weight to the potential impact that halting the inspection could have on the public interest.

Coupang also declined to accept a compensation mediation proposal for victims of the personal information leak. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Commission had ruled that Coupang should compensate 50 victims 100,000 won each. The immediate total is 5 million won, but if the same standard were applied to all victims, the cost could rise to trillions of won. This may explain Coupang's statement that it had considered the "impact inside and outside the company." A company can, of course, weigh potential costs. But at the parliamentary audit, Coupang failed to clearly explain the basis for its decision to reject the proposal or identify who was responsible.

The two cases are different, but Coupang's response has one thing in common. It has been firm in protecting the company's rights, but when asked to take responsibility for its decisions, it has fallen back on "internal discussions." It is only natural for multiple departments to be involved in important management decisions. But "internal discussions" describe a decision-making process; they cannot be held responsible.

What is disappointing is that this is not the first time we have seen this. At a National Assembly hearing in December 2025 on the personal information leak, questions were also raised about Chairman Kim's role and the company's decision-making structure, but they remained unanswered. Coupang should reflect on why the same questions keep coming up.

Coupang has transformed the retail market and improved consumer convenience through Rocket Delivery and investment in logistics. But the benefits of innovation do not relieve a company of its social responsibilities. Exercising legal rights and earning public trust are two different things. What is expected of a company with revenue in the tens of trillions of won is more than just fast delivery. It must explain the basis for its decisions and take responsibility for their consequences. Coupang does not need another explanation at a parliamentary audit; it needs to change enough that it will not face the same questions next year.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.