₩100 Billion Gift, One Explosive Question: Can Controversial CEOs Buy Moral Legitimacy?

A massive ₩100 billion donation to Seoul National University has ignited a nationwide debate in South Korea, not over the scale of the contribution, but over whether a donor’s ethical record should matter when accepting such a gift. On January 13, Hong Beom-jun, CEO of the education publishing company Goodbook Sinsago, donated the funds to Seoul National University, stating that the purpose was to support researchers and students in the natural sciences and help cultivate future Nobel Prize–level talent. According to Hong, the donation was intended to provide a more stable environment for academic research and study, particularly in fields that require long-term investment and institutional support.

Public reaction online was sharply divided. Many commenters focused on the unprecedented size of the donation, calling it generous and praising its potential impact on Korean science and higher education. At the same time, strong criticism emerged from inside Hong’s company and from labor-related civic groups, who argued that the donation should not be separated from the company’s labor practices. On the day of the donation ceremony, the labor union of Goodbook Sinsago, along with several civic organizations, held a press conference in front of the Seoul National University Museum of Art to protest what they described as an “act of hypocrisy.”

The union stated that the donation was not a purely personal act of goodwill but was made possible by the labor of employees who, they claim, have been subjected to repeated unfair labor practices. According to the union, the company has been found to have engaged in multiple cases of unlawful conduct, including refusal to participate in collective bargaining. They also claimed that certain employees were excluded from long-service awards and disadvantaged in performance evaluations, actions that were recognized as unfair labor practices as recently as January 12. In addition, more than ten cases of workplace harassment were reportedly acknowledged, while issues related to unpaid bonuses and bargaining refusal have been forwarded to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office with a recommendation for indictment. Based on these facts, union representatives argued that the donation should be viewed as an attempt at moral cleansing rather than as an unqualified public good.

Experts note that while there is no legal basis to prohibit such donations, the social context surrounding corporate philanthropy has changed. Lee Byung-hoon, emeritus professor of sociology at Chung-Ang University, stated that as public awareness and expectations around corporate ethics increase, high-profile donations by controversial business leaders may trigger stronger negative reactions. Rather than improving a donor’s reputation, such gestures can intensify scrutiny if unresolved legal or ethical issues remain. Koo Jung-woo, professor of sociology at Sungkyunkwan University, added that when a donor is involved in widely recognized disputes, institutions receiving large donations may need to consider how they assess and manage such contributions. He suggested that confirming how ethical concerns are being addressed before accepting donations could be a more socially responsible approach.

The controversy surrounding the ₩100 billion donation has expanded beyond a single individual or institution and into a broader discussion about the boundaries of philanthropy. At its core, the debate raises a fundamental question increasingly asked in modern society: should the value of a donation be judged solely by its financial impact, or should the conduct of the donor also be part of the equation? As expectations for corporate social and ethical responsibility continue to rise, this case illustrates how even the largest acts of giving can become sources of division rather than consensus.