The OnLINE platform has grown into an indispensable industry for our economy. However, conflicts between platforms and affiliated businesses over fees, advertising costs, delivery charges, and settlement conditions continue to recur. For small business owners, for whom using the platform is no longer a choice but a necessity, these costs directly translate into management burdens. Nevertheless, the OnLINE platform industry remains in a regulatory blind spot without a separate institutional framework that considers its unique characteristics.
However, we cannot simply stand idle until legislation is enacted. Generally, the need for regulation increases as conflicts intensify and damages grow. Conversely, if mutual prosperity cooperation takes root first in the market and yields tangible results, the need for strong regulation may diminish. Of course, it is not easy to expect results by leaving mutual prosperity cooperation entirely to corporate autonomy. Given that power imbalances exist in transactional relationships, the government needs to create a platform for mutual prosperity and provide guidelines that outline at least the minimum direction.
The recently proposed amendment to the 'Act on Promotion of Mutual Prosperity Cooperation between Large and SME (small and medium-sized enterprises)' also needs to be viewed from this perspective. The aim is to establish an institutional foundation that can systematically create mutual prosperity cooperation, which has relied on the autonomous efforts of individual platforms, and evaluate and give preferential treatment to such mutual prosperity efforts.
Some voices raise concerns that this effectively marks the beginning of OnLINE platform regulation, arguing it could impose burdens on businesses and expand government intervention in the market. However, institutionalization and regulation must be distinguished. Directly determining fees or transaction conditions by the government differs from objectively assessing a platform's mutual prosperity efforts and providing incentives to outstanding companies. In fact, this approach can be more flexible as it encourages voluntary improvements and competition among market participants.
To achieve this, we must first accurately grasp the reality of the market. Effective policies are only possible with objective information on how much cost small business owners actually bear, how settlements are conducted, and what differences exist in mutual prosperity efforts across platforms.
Above all, mutual prosperity cooperation should not be perceived as a one-sided burden on platforms. A platform's competitiveness depends on whether many consumers and competitive affiliated businesses continue to participate. Even if a platform grows, it is difficult to consider it a healthy ecosystem if the profitability of small business owners operating within it continues to deteriorate. Mutual prosperity cooperation is a sustainable growth strategy for platforms, preceding regulation.
Platforms that reduce transaction costs, shorten settlement periods, and actively share necessary data with affiliated businesses should receive higher evaluations in the market. The government must also evaluate and give preferential treatment to companies that are proactive in mutual prosperity, thereby encouraging platforms to compete over better models of cooperation.
Discussions surrounding platform policy must no longer be framed as a confrontation between 'regulation versus innovation.' Platform innovation must continue. SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and small business owners who participate in this innovation must also grow together. Mutual prosperity cooperation is not an obstacle to platform growth but a stepping stone for a sustainable future. It is now time to view the competitiveness of the platform industry not only by 'how fast it grows' but also from the perspective of 'how much it grows together.'
in OPINION
