A blame game is in full swing over Homeplus, which was taken off life support after failing to raise 200 billion won. The Democratic Party's Eulji-ro Committee summoned the management of MBK, the largest shareholder, and Meritz, the largest creditor, to the same table. But before placing a Homeplus running out of its golden hour on the operating table, they only traded blame over who would pay for the surgery.
Earlier, Meritz decided to put up 100 billion won as funding for Homeplus's rehabilitation, setting a condition that the money could be used only if MBK Chairman Michael Byungju Kim provided a personal guarantee. MBK's position is that it will guarantee the 100 billion won only after a contract to lend the full 200 billion won is signed first.
As an alternative, the Eulji-ro Committee asked Meritz to allow part of the proceeds from selling Homeplus stores slated for closure to be used as emergency operating funds for Homeplus, but Meritz reportedly refused in effect. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Nam-keun rebuked them, saying, "Aren't they knowingly and blatantly steering toward liquidation because they know that if the two companies go through liquidation procedures, the profits they will gain are enormous?"
Capital pursuing profit within lawful bounds cannot be condemned. Explaining this situation as the result of MBK's greed or Meritz's coldness is also too simplistic an approach. This is because the regulatory environment that has constrained the large-format retail industry over the past decade or so is also one of the causes behind this Homeplus crisis.
In such an environment, even if emergency funds were executed, it is questionable whether Homeplus could recover its former competitiveness. This is precisely why MBK and Meritz are reluctant to readily put up funds. The Homeplus crisis stems partly from MBK's management failure, but it is also a policy failure that left regulations unsuited to the changing times unaddressed for a long time.
While the blame game continues, the lives of about 100,000 people are being shaken — including some 13,000 Homeplus workers, as well as suppliers, partner companies and local commercial districts that have relied on Homeplus for their livelihoods. Given this scale of impact, capital must not look only at the numbers but also bear the social responsibility commensurate with it. MBK and Meritz need to consider social responsibility and value based on corporate rehabilitation together. The political sphere, too, must overhaul retail regulations unsuited to the changing times and create an environment in which large-format retailers can recover their competitiveness. For now, the urgent priority is to get Homeplus onto the operating table.
