Abstract

Purpose - There is a dominant opinion that medium and small enterprises in the Korean economy have not developed qualitatively but only towards quantitative growth and, therefore, the unbalanced structure between large enterprises and those that are medium and small has worsened. In particular, this rapid industrialization causes after-effects such as polarization as well as anti-business sentiment, the collapse of the middle class, and hostility against the establishment. The consensus contends that it is difficult for Korea to be an advanced nation without resolving these problems. This paper attempts to suggest a co-prosperity model by limiting the focus to business relations with medium and small manufacturers (with regard to investment among the various co-prosperity institutions of POSCO). These co-prosperity institutions have been established in POSCO; however, it is thought that the development of a co-prosperity model regarding investment in medium and small manufacturers will help many needy investment manufacturers. Research design, data, and methodology - This study analyzes research on the co-prosperity model, using it to examine Korean cases and foreign cases. The co-prosperity model has been continuously extended but is determined to be seriously insufficient. The purpose of this study is to develop the Korean co-prosperity model by reinterpreting it in various aspects. In order to develop the Korean co-prosperity model, this study suggests the case of the establishment of the co-prosperity model by POSCO with medium and small manufacturers with regard to investment. This model is expected to be presented to many enterprises as the future co-prosperity model. Results - To date, analysis of the co-prosperity model itself and the co-prosperity model through the case of POSCO have been suggested. As empirical studies on co-prosperity in Korea are not sufficient, successful models of co-prosperity should be developed in various aspects in future. It is expected that through this study, medium and small manufacturers would have an opportunity to find various growth engines by actively using the cooperation platform and establishing optimized competitiveness of steel material through a steel business model. The ecosystem of enterprises may evolve and be healthier by making more joint products through productive business relationships between large enterprises and those that are medium and small. From the enterprises' ecosystem viewpoint, cooperation between such businesses rather than one-way support is identified as an essential element for the security of inter-competitiveness. Conclusions - Infrastructure should be established to form a dynamic industry ecosystem not by transient efforts in co-prosperity, but by an entire culture of co-prosperity across industries. In this respect, the leading role of public institutions needs to be intensified initially. In addition, the effects of co-prosperity should be extended to blind spots of policies such as third party companies and regions. A precise co-prosperity monitoring system should be established to continuously conduct and extend these efforts.