[Edaily Reporter Yun Junghoon ] It has been pointed out that simply resolving incidents such as personal data breaches and restoring services does not automatically restore customer trust; rather, trust can only be restored once companies have alleviated the anxiety and inconvenience customers experienced following the incident and demonstrated through concrete actions their commitment to compensating victims and preventing recurrence. Academics and civil society groups reflecting on the SKTelecom(017670) hacking incident emphasized that the standard for evaluating a company’s crisis response should be based not on whether operations have returned to normal, but on the extent to which consumers feel that damages have been remedied and the company has fulfilled its responsibilities.

At a forum on corporate crisis response hosted by the Korean Society of Media Management at the Press Center in Jung-gu, Seoul, on the 28th, UNIST Professor Kim Mo-ran noted that restoring a company’s systems and helping customers return to their daily lives are separate issues. Bang Hyo-chang, Chair of the Policy Committee at the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ), emphasized that corporate trust is not something a company declares on its own but is evaluated by consumers and society, and that companies must demonstrate results in resolving damages and preventing recurrence, going beyond merely managing the aftermath of the incident.

Professor Kim pointed out that the costs incurred by customers during a crisis should not be limited to financial burdens.

“The time and effort spent searching for information to verify the details of an incident, as well as the anxiety over potential future harm, are also costs borne by customers,” she said. “Even if a company provides financial support, such as compensation or fee discounts, it is difficult to consider that the inconvenience and anxiety experienced by customers have been fully resolved.”

Professor Kim further added, “The point at which a company announces that it has restored service may differ from the point at which customers can comfortably return to their daily lives and once again use the service with confidence and trust.”

He also argued that the criteria for evaluating customer recovery must change. It is necessary to consider not only the extent to which the financial burden has been alleviated but also the time and effort customers spent resolving the issue, their psychological well-being, and their freedom of choice. He suggested that companies investigate the actual experiences customers faced—such as waiting times and scheduling confusion during the SIM card replacement process following the incident—and use these findings to improve guidance and booking procedures.

The communication approach in the early stages of a crisis also affects the restoration of trust. Immediately after an incident, it is difficult to verify all the exact facts, making it challenging to ensure both speed and accuracy. However, Professor Kim explained that rather than delaying information due to high uncertainty, companies should specifically share the facts confirmed so far, details currently under investigation, actions customers should take, and the timing of the next update.

Chairman Bang emphasized that the core of a corporate crisis should not be limited to the incident itself but must also examine how the company fulfilled its responsibilities in the aftermath. This is because a company’s failure in security management can escalate into consumer harm, a management crisis, and a loss of public trust. He pointed out that the fact that a company has returned to normal operations does not necessarily mean that consumer harm has been resolved.

He believed that SKT’s responsibility for the incident and its post-incident response should be evaluated separately.

Chairman Bang stated, “It is positive that SKT responded proactively after the incident and that subscriber numbers have recovered to a significant extent,” but emphasized, “However, a proactive response does not absolve the company of responsibility for the incident itself, and the company must continue to fulfill its responsibilities to provide redress for damages and prevent recurrence.”

In particular, he cautioned against institutional structures that make it advantageous for companies to cover up incidents or refuse to cooperate with investigations. He argued that supervision and sanctions must be strengthened, as similar problems could recur if companies determine that concealing an incident is more profitable than responding responsibly.

Chairman Bang stated, “The core of corporate crisis management lies not merely in resolving the incident but in properly fulfilling one’s responsibilities,” adding, “Corporate trust is not something a company declares; it is evaluated by consumers and society.”

SKT also reflected on its crisis response from the customer’s perspective. Lee Hye-yeon, Head of the Customer Value Innovation Office at SKT, explained that while the company quickly implemented customer protection measures immediately after the incident, what customers actually faced were long lines to replace SIM cards and confusion regarding appointments. She noted that implementing protective measures and ensuring customers could access them without inconvenience were two separate issues.

Lee explained that the company responded by temporarily suspending new subscriber sign-ups and focusing store resources on SIM card replacements, with approximately 20,000 employees providing on-site support. Although the company implemented measures such as waiving cancellation fees, offering customer benefits, and expanding security investments, she reflected that trust, once shaken, could not be immediately restored through one-time measures alone.

SKT stated that it is strengthening its system to directly listen to customer feedback and translate it into service improvements. Director Lee emphasized that it is not enough to simply review customer satisfaction surveys and the number of complaints received by the customer service center; staff must visit the field to identify problems firsthand.

He cited a specific example: after receiving a complaint about poor signal quality in a certain area of Jinan, North Jeolla Province, a field inspection revealed that the direction of a repeater antenna was misaligned, and the issue was subsequently resolved.

Director Lee also stated that the company is exploring ways to gauge customer trust through actual actions rather than mere survey responses. He explained that indicators of trust could include whether customers suspect that recommended rate plans are intended for sales purposes, or whether they seek additional verification by contacting the customer service center or searching the internet. He explained that the company plans to systematize the process so that customer feedback directly leads to actual business decisions and service improvements.

Earlier in the seminar, Professor Shin Min-soo of Hanyang University stated, “Restoring trust in a company cannot be achieved through a one-time apology or compensation campaign; it is a process of embedding customer protection measures into the actual management system and consistently demonstrating the results of those improvements over the long term.”