Abstract:Communicative rationality and justice, the main objectives of Habermas’ reconstruction of critical social theory, can be defined as the fair distribution of opportunities to speak, the inclusive participation of social actors, the accessibility of topics without restriction, the willingness to not only speak but listen, two-way vibrant interaction, self-transformation via learning from others, and reaching voluntary agreements over common goals and values. The concept of communicative reciprocity is essential here. Those equipped with the norm of reciprocity can better comprehend diversities and complexities, as well as the conflict-ridden aspects of social life, and thus can develop a stronger capacity of nurturing sensitivity to live in harmony with other people. This paper attempts to apply the concept of communicative rationality and reciprocity to the areas of business ethics in order to explore the significance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Ecological and Social Governance (ESG) as innovations in corporate governance. In addition, this paper will draw special attention to Stockowner–Employee (SOE) partnership as a new experiment of business ethics in Republic of Korea. By doing so, this paper aims to grasp the attributes of those who are more capable than others of understanding the norms and practices of CSR within an economic enterprise, with the view that reciprocal sympathy can serve as a communicative basis for what we might call responsible capitalist culture. The main arguments this paper makes are: (1) the recent change in the value orientations of shareholders in support for CSR and ESG can be interpreted as an expression of communicative reciprocity and justice; and (2) the transformation of business ethics in the direction of CSR and ESG means that classical liberalism has begun to turn to a “responsible” liberalism. Survey data collected from a Korean company will be analyzed to show how the norm of reciprocity is reflected in the relationship between corporations and society on the one hand and between shareholders and employees on the other.

Corporate Social Responsibility in International Business: Illustrations from Korean and Japanese Electronics MNEs in Indonesia

Human Resource Practices for Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence From Korean Firms

CSR Expenditure and Company Performance: Charity or Signal? Evidence from Indonesia

Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Evidence from Korea

Do firms manage corporate social responsibility strategically?: Evidence from ESG ratings of Korean firms

Corporate Social Responsibility, Ownership Structure, and Firm Value: Evidence from Korea

Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance and Earnings Quality: Evidence from Korea

Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Korea

The profits of cause: a new direction for corporate social responsibility in South Korea

Multinational companies and the corporate social responsibility at home: the stakeholder approach

One in the Same? Unpacking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and ESG in South Korea

Does ESG Performance Enhance Firm Value? Evidence from Korea

Business Group Internationalization Literature Research: Focusing on Korean Chaebols and Japanese Keiretsu

Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The impact of the MSCI ESG Ratings on Korean Firms

Communicative rationality and the evolution of business ethics: corporate social responsibility and stockowner–employee partnership–An empirical case study in Republic of Korea1

How Can Multinational Enterprises Effectively Implement Local Consumer-Oriented Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategies? A Multi-Perspective Study on the Differences in CSR Response Mechanisms between Chinese and Japanese Consumers

Reasons for CSR engagement in SMES and MNCS: a qualitative perspective

The Impact of Cultural Distance on the Performance of Foreign Subsidiaries: Evidence From the Korean Market

Corporate Social Responsibility, Audit Committee Expertise, and Financial Reporting: Empirical Evidence from Korea