(As of January 2, 2026) Coupang (CPNG), the undisputed leader in South Korea's e-commerce market, is facing its greatest crisis since its inception due to deep-seated structural flaws and ethical voids hidden behind its rapid growth.
Recent revelations during the National Assembly audit—including a string of worker deaths, allegations of treating employees like "machines," and a catastrophic personal data breach affecting 33.7 million users—are raising fundamental questions about who Coupang's "innovation" truly serves. From an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) perspective, Coupang’s conduct has been criticized as opaque and irresponsible, falling far short of the standards expected of a global corporation.
The first major "Social (S)" risk, labor safety, is identified as Coupang’s most painful Achilles' heel. Despite holding the dishonorable title of the highest number of industrial accidents and fatalities in the industry, Coupang’s management appeared at the national audit only to evade responsibility, prioritizing "system excellence" and "individual health issues" over a sincere apology.
In particular, the so-called "Cleansing" clause—a toxic provision where workers can be effectively terminated if they fail to meet extreme delivery speeds—is cited as a classic case of anti-human rights management that treats workers as disposable parts rather than human beings. This behavior directly contradicts the spirit of the Serious Accident Punishment Act and the Labor Standards Act, serving as a decisive factor in Coupang receiving the lowest ratings in social responsibility. (Serious Accident Punishment Act, Article 4)
The second risk, the massive personal data breach, laid bare Coupang’s management failures and lack of communication. Despite the leak of names, addresses, and apartment gate codes for over 33.3 million customers due to negligence in managing internal authentication keys, Coupang reportedly attempted to mislead public opinion by pre-emptively releasing its own "internal investigation" results before the government's official announcement.
The offer of 50,000 KRW vouchers as compensation only fueled public outrage, with many calling it a "mockery of consumers." Instead of a sincere investigation into the cause and transparent disclosure, the company’s reliance on U.S.-style legal defense logic to minimize liability highlights the limitations of a "Black-Haired Foreigner" firm that remains detached from domestic sentiment. (Personal Information Protection Act, Article 34)
The lack of transparency in "Governance (G)" is even more severe. Allegations of private profit-taking emerged after it was revealed that the brother and sister-in-law of CEO Kim Bom-suk received approximately 14 billion KRW in salary and stock-based compensation over the past few years. Specifically, the lack of a persuasive explanation as to why the brother's compensation was set substantially higher than that of CEO Kim (who received no separate compensation) remains a point of contention.
This exposes Coupang's governance vulnerabilities, as it has utilized complex structures to avoid being designated as a "chaebol" (conglomerate) head under the Fair Trade Act. The asymmetrical management structure—where power is exercised while responsibility is evaded behind the shield of legal loopholes—is seriously damaging investor trust. (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 33)
Ultimately, Coupang’s current state can be summarized as a complete disappearance of ESG management. While competitors strengthen transparency by publishing hundreds of pages of sustainability reports, Coupang attempts to conceal core risks with a mere 6-page "Impact Report" focused solely on PR. Market experts unanimously analyze that Coupang's method—lacking environmental (E) metrics, social (S) achievements, and governance (G) transparency—is unsustainable.
The standard for a corporation in 2026 South Korean society is no longer just sales growth, but respect for life and transparent, responsible management. To overcome this wave of public fury, Coupang must stop hiding behind its status as a "U.S.-listed company" and rewrite its social contract as a Korean corporate citizen from the ground up. (Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, Article 10)
