[Edaily Reporter Kim Mi-kyung] “I’m quitting Starbucks.”

The initial movement to boycott Starbucks began as a voluntary choice by citizens. It was a movement by consumers who felt offended by Starbucks Korea’s marketing—which sparked controversy by trivializing the May 18 Democratization Movement by using it as material for a commercial event—and sought to hold the company accountable.

However, the mood has shifted. Voices calling out Starbucks’ wrongdoing began to gradually escalate into a political battle as the issue coincided with the run-up to the June 3 local elections. As government agencies and political circles appeared to publicly pressure a specific company and effectively encourage a consumer boycott, the phrase “I won’t go to Starbucks” began to be interpreted not as a simple consumer choice but as a political signal.

Herein lies the problem. The moment politics is superimposed on citizens’ voluntary concerns, the issue tends to shift toward partisan logic rather than reflection on social responsibility. If the government begins to dictate the direction of citizens’ consumption choices, the nature of the controversy is bound to change.

Starbucks’ responsibility is also not insignificant. Linking an expression that evokes the tragic memories of the May 18 Democratization Movement to a commercial event is rightly subject to criticism. However, the current response from the political sphere raises concerns in that it appears to go beyond holding the company accountable and borders on public punishment. It is difficult to shake the impression that the Minister of the Interior and Safety’s public call for a boycott and the ruling and opposition parties’ attempts to capitalize on the issue are excessive.

If a company has done wrong, it should be held accountable through the law and existing systems. The proper approach is to follow established principles, such as reducing tax benefits, imposing regulations, or taking administrative and legal measures. Above all, we must objectively examine who is actually affected by the political sphere’s public pressure. A significant number of those working at Starbucks stores are young workers who have nothing to do with this controversy. The burden of damage to the company’s image and declining sales is likely to fall first and foremost on the most vulnerable. The ripple effects could extend not only to frontline workers but also to subcontractors and suppliers.

From a corporate perspective, predictability is paramount. Even with regulations in place, companies can respond if the standards and principles are clear. However, if the perception spreads that a specific company could be singled out as a “target for punishment” at any time depending on the political climate, the uncertainty surrounding business management will inevitably increase. The national vision of becoming one of the world’s top seven space powers, the world’s leading semiconductor nation, and a leader in the humanoid industry may ultimately amount to nothing more than empty slogans if the perception persists that South Korea is a difficult place to do business.