𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐜𝐚 ♡ 𝐄𝐍-⁷

HYBE lands near the bottom at 48 out of 50 in South Korea's 2026 corporate HUMAN RIGHTS assessment, scoring just 2.25 out of 12. While its chairman, Bang Si-Hyuk faces a separate police investigation over fraud that could result in life imprisonment. (lawleader.co.kr/news/articleVi…)

Temos quatro caminhões em frente a hybe agora 🩷 $HYBE #Pay_Attention_To_HYBE #Financial_Boycott_HYBE_Belift

“HYBE’s Ethical Management Reputation Tarnished… Ranked 48th out of 50 Companies in Human Rights Due Diligence Evaluation by the Korean Bar Association” lawleader.co.kr/news/articleVi… Reporter Choi Chang-young, Law Leader HYBE, widely known for BTS, ranked 48th out of 50 companies after receiving only 2.25 out of a possible 12 points in a human rights due diligence evaluation conducted by the Korean Bar Association and Human Asia. The Korean Bar Association (President Kim Jung-wook) announced that on April 21 at 2 PM, it held the 2026 “Business and Human Rights Report Conference – Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Evaluation Results and Tasks Conference” together with Human Asia at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry. According to the corporate human rights due diligence evaluation results 발표ed at the conference, Hyundai Engineering & Construction ranked first overall with a perfect score of 12. It was followed by LG Electronics (11.07), Naver (11), Samsung Electronics (10.96), and Kakao (10.16), which placed in the top tier. At the lower end, Coupang ranked last with only 1.25 points, while NongHyup Financial Group (1.75), HYBE (2.25), Korea Eximbank (2.75), and SeAH Steel (2.75) also received low evaluations. However, attorney Lee Geun-woo, who was in charge of the evaluation report, stated, “This was not conducted to criticize companies that received low scores, but to analyze how much can be evaluated based on publicly available materials,” adding, “It was not intended to criticize any specific company.” Attorney Lee Geun-woo pointed out, “Companies have, to some extent, established systems related to these matters, but when you examine whether those systems are actually implemented, there are many shortcomings.” In particular, HYBE (Chairman Bang Si-hyuk) was evaluated as having announced a human rights management policy, but lacking substance in its detailed content. HYBE received 1.5 out of 3 points in the policy commitment category. It has announced a human rights management policy and specified support for international standards, and its internal policies also reflect such standards. However, there was no confirmed statement requiring the same commitments from partner companies, no policy statement promising remedies for human rights violations, no recognition of stakeholders’ rights to remedy, and no disclosure of cooperation with judicial or non-judicial processes. In the category evaluating the embedding of human rights into corporate culture and management systems, HYBE received only 0.25 out of 1 point. While it specifies that a human rights team carries out practical duties, it was assessed as lacking disclosure on the roles of senior management, an overall responsibility allocation system, and resource allocation for supply chain management. HYBE did not receive any points in the human rights due diligence evaluation category, which has a maximum of 5 points. It was noted that HYBE operates only passive reporting channels, lacks disclosure of systematic risk identification procedures, and provides no disclosure across the entire due diligence process, including risk assessment, implementation of measures, tracking, and communication. In the evaluation of remedy and grievance mechanisms, HYBE received only 0.5 out of a possible 3 points. While the existence of grievance channels for workers or external individuals and communities was acknowledged, the evaluation found a lack of detailed requirements such as language and accessibility guarantees, supply chain access, communication of expectations, and the complete absence of a structured remediation system. Meanwhile, on the 21st—the same day the Korean Bar Association’s human rights due diligence evaluation was 발표ed—police applied for an arrest warrant for Chairman Bang Si-hyuk on charges of violating the Capital Markets Act (fraudulent unfair trading). However, on the 24th, the Financial and Securities Crime Joint Investigation Division of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office returned the warrant request, calling for supplementary investigation. In response, on the 27th, police stated that while it is difficult to predict whether they will reapply for the arrest warrant, they are currently conducting additional investigation following the prosecution’s request. For this human rights due diligence evaluation, the CHRB platform was used as a tool to measure and compare the level of corporate human rights management. CHRB is based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which serve as a global standard and are the result of extensive international consensus over a long period. The core CHRB indicators consist of: ▲A. Policy commitments (respect for human rights, respect for workers’ rights, and commitment to remedies), ▲C. Embedding respect for human rights into corporate culture and management systems (responsibility and resources for carrying out routine human rights functions), ▲D. Human rights due diligence (identifying and assessing human rights risks and impacts, integrating results and implementing actions, tracking effectiveness, and communicating human rights impacts), ▲E. Remedy and grievance mechanisms (grievance mechanisms for workers, grievance mechanisms for external individuals and communities, and remedies for adverse impacts). The companies evaluated were primarily selected based on revenue. After securing a list of Korea’s top 100 companies, 40 companies were extracted by industry based on 2024 disclosed revenue rankings. Companies belonging to large conglomerates such as Samsung Group—where too many affiliates could be included—or holding companies with unclear operational substance that make them unsuitable as units for human rights management evaluation were excluded. These were replaced sequentially with other qualifying companies based on revenue rankings. Professor Lee Sang-soo of Sogang Law School (Head of the Human Asia Business and Human Rights Center) explained, “While it cannot be definitively said that CHRB is the best evaluation tool, it is the most authoritative internationally and widely used, so it holds sufficient value,” adding, “This evaluation is not intended to single out underperforming companies for criticism, but to understand the challenges companies face and find ways for mutual growth and coexistence.” Meanwhile, the conference presentations were delivered by Lee Sang-soo, attorney Lee Geun-woo (Yulchon LLC), researcher Woo Yong-won of the Human Asia Business and Human Rights Center, and attorney Song Si-hyun (LKB & Partners). In the designated discussion session, chaired by Song Se-ryeon (Chairperson of the Korea Human Rights Foundation), participants included Lee Eun-kyung (UN Global Compact Korea Association), Cho Young-joon (Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry), Park Tae-sung (National Human Rights Commission of Korea), Seo Eun-jung (POSCO International), and attorney Kim Dong-hyun (Business and Human Rights Network / Hope Law).