Controversy Over the Effectiveness of Mandatory Closures for Large Supermarkets... Consumers and Experts Call for "Regulatory Relaxation"

7 out of 10 Consumers Say Deregulation Needed
Mandatory Closures and Business Hour Restrictions Must Be Lifted

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Chun-han] The large-scale supermarket operating regulations introduced under the pretext of protecting local businesses are facing growing controversy over their effectiveness. A survey found that 7 out of 10 consumers believe these regulations need to be relaxed. Experts also unanimously agreed that distribution regulations are "anachronistic" and called for a "bold transition."

On the 15th, according to a survey titled '10 Years of Large-scale Supermarket Operating Regulations, Consumer Perception Survey' conducted by the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 1,000 consumers who had used large-scale supermarkets within the past year, 67.8% of respondents said that the regulations should be relaxed. Those who favored maintaining the current regulations and strengthening them accounted for 29.3% and 2.9%, respectively. Among the ways to relax regulations, abolishing the regulations (27.5%), implementing mandatory closure days considering regional characteristics (29.6%), and reducing the number of mandatory closure days (10.7%) were cited.

When asked whether the operating regulations for large-scale supermarkets were effective in revitalizing traditional markets and local businesses, 48.5% responded that they were not effective. The reasons included that traditional markets and local businesses did not revive despite the regulations on large supermarkets (70.1%, multiple responses allowed), purchasing demand on mandatory closure days shifted to channels other than traditional markets and local businesses (53.6%), and consumers only experienced inconvenience (44.3%). Those who said the regulations were effective accounted for 34.0%, and 17.5% were unsure.

Consumers, when aware of mandatory closure days, mainly used channels other than large-scale supermarkets (49.4%) or visited large supermarkets on days they were open (33.5%). Other channels visited included medium-sized supermarkets and food material marts (52.2%), online shopping (24.5%), and neighborhood supermarkets and marts (20.6%). Only 16.2% said they shopped at traditional markets on the same day. When asked whether large-scale supermarkets and traditional markets are in competition, 57.3% said no, while 20.3% said yes.

Among large-scale supermarket users, 47.9% said they had not used traditional markets even once in the past year. The proportion of people who did not use traditional markets was higher among younger age groups: 73% in their 20s, 56% in their 30s, 44% in their 40s, and 41% in their 50s. When asked if mandatory closure days of large supermarkets caused inconvenience in shopping, opinions were split with 36.2% saying yes and 37.4% saying no. The remaining 26.4% were neutral.

Experts also agreed that mandatory closure and operating hour restrictions on large-scale supermarkets and corporate supermarkets (SSM), which directly affect consumer rights, should be abolished, and that support for traditional markets should focus on their independent development. Professor Seo Yong-gu of the Department of Business Administration at Sookmyung Women's University pointed out, "Since 2010, almost no country worldwide regulates the distribution industry. This law does not consider the development of smartphones and the growth of e-commerce at all," adding, "There is no shopping shift effect from large supermarkets to traditional markets."

Professor Lee Eun-hee of the Department of Consumer Studies at Inha University said, "From the consumer's perspective, the entry of SSMs is a good option because they offer advanced store layouts and a variety of products," emphasizing that it should not be viewed negatively unconditionally. Professor Kim Si-wol of the Department of Consumer Studies at Konkuk University evaluated, "It was meaningful in terms of coexistence with small business owners," but also said, "It is negative in promoting free competition or a perfect market."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.