Corporate Social Responsibility and Discrimination

Introduction
Only a year after taking the helm at Starbucks, CEO Kevin Johnson faced a major ethical challenge. The store manager at a Philadelphia Starbucks had called the police on two African American men who were waiting for their colleagues to arrive. Other customers captured the arrest on smartphone video, which went viral, creating a potential public relations disaster for the company. Johnson swiftly responded to the incident to clarify the ethical outlook, mission, and values of Starbucks. After immediately firing the Philadelphia manager who called the police on the two men, the CEO made public statements indicating that the manager’s actions were “wrong,” signifying a deontological approach (Tangdall 1). However, Johnson also exhibits utilitarian ethics in his public statements and subsequent actions related to the event, saying, “Creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for everyone is paramount for every store,” (1). Yet Starbucks also traditionally utilized a virtue ethics approach in its company culture, particularly with regards to allowing managers to have a great deal of discretion over decisions related to customer relations (Tangdall 1). While it may seem deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics approaches are incompatible, the way Kevin Johnson handled the Philadelphia incident shows how these three primary ethical philosophies can be aligned to provide guidance in matters related to corporate social responsibility. This paper will analyze the actions of both the former store manager and CEO Kevin Johnson, to reveal the many ethical facets in this complex case.
Facts of the Case
A store manager called the police on two African American men because they were waiting for a colleague and had not yet placed their drink orders. Then, “video of the disturbing incident went viral and community protests mounted,” (Gourguechon 1). The fact that the police were willing to make the arrest shows that the manager and the police shared an ethical point of view that differed significantly from that of the general public, as well as from that of corporate headquarters. Because the store manager was swiftly censured, it is impossible to know for certain what the rationale was for phoning the police. Ostensibly the rationale was that the manager believed that the two men may have been loitering on company property, which is why the police agreed to make the arrest even though the men were causing no harm to themselves or other people by waiting for their colleague. CEO Kevin Johnson without hesitation rebuked and fired the store manager and then “quickly issued a detailed apology and plan of action and posted a video of it on the Starbucks website,” (Gourguechon 1). Moreover, Johnson closed around 8000 Starbucks stores to provide diversity training for managers and employees (Visconti 1). Johnson’s reaction to the event can be framed from deontological, utilitarian, as well as virtue ethics perspectives. 
Deontology
One of the central premises of deontological ethics is the categorical imperative, otherwise referred to as the Formula of the Universal. For Kant and other deontologists, ethics are set in stone, immutable, and indisputable. Circumstances and situational variables do not impact ethical decisions. Deontological ethics are not consequentialist; the ends do not justify the means. The deontologist uses the categorical imperative in general as a test for moral or ethical permissibility. One of the ground rules for the categorical imperative is the universality of ethical tenets: the Formula of the Universal. Laws are the most mundane, simple, and obvious examples of universal formulas, although there may be some laws that do not actually reflect universal ethics. One example of when laws do not reflect universal ethics can be seen in American history with the legal segregation laws. Therefore, ethical principles precede the evolution of formal ethical codes. The categorical imperative as the Formula of the Universal motivates the individual to take action in alignment with universal ethical laws.
The lack or absence of a formal ethical code does not imply the lack of a universal formula. In the Starbucks case, the manager of the store may have been unaware of the Formula of the Universal, ignorant of the fact that calling the police on people simply because they were waiting for coffee constitutes a moral transgression. Similarly, the presence of a formal law does not imply that the law accurately expresses the ethical principle. In the Starbucks case, the police officers were enforcing laws that ostensibly protect the general public from minor misdemeanors like loitering. Whatever the reasons used to rationalize or justify their actions, the police did not act in accordance with the categorical imperative to treat people with respect. Even if the police and the Starbucks manager had claimed that the two men that were arrested would have proved a danger to the public, their actions would not have been justifiable because of they way they dehumanized the two men in question, using the two customers as a means to an end of showcasing power and privilege. The concept of mere means refers to using people as mere means to an end. However, Johnson may have used the manager as a mere means; a scapegoat to divert attention from a corporate culture that has yet to embrace diversity ethics at the upper tier of management (Visconti 1).
Performing an act on the grounds that it is simply the right thing to do is known as the end-in-itself. The concept of end-in-itself also ties in with the notion of moral motivation: with being intrinsically motivated to act in a moral manner being the epitome of end-in-itself behavior. Categorical imperative refers to the absolute rightness or wrongness of an act. In other words, an act can be inherently good or bad, regardless of the person’s motivation. In this case, the manager’s motivation is meaningless in light of the moral wrongness of an act of discrimination that publically humiliated two persons and which also potentially harmed the entire Starbucks Corporation.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system in which the ends can conceivably justify the means, as long as the act results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number is the ultimate test of ethical permissibility. For example, a utilitarian would agree with the premise of social services including welfare, social housing, and socialized medicine on the grounds that social welfare programs promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Even if a small number of people are put out by the fact that they have to pay additional taxes, their hardships are much smaller than those suffered by the vast majority of people who would significantly suffer were it not for some sort of social assistance. 
The Greatest Happiness Principle is also used and applicable in the Starbucks case. In this case, it can be assumed that the manager made a decision to call the police on the grounds that he believed that the two men were causing a disturbance or might bother the other customers. His decision may have been based on utilitarian principles showcasing the greatest happiness principle, and the police officers would have possibly agreed with the manager on this count. Both the manager and the law enforcement officers operated in accordance with the Harm principle: which indicates it is morally permissible to restrict the rights of others to act as they will only when those actions would have caused harm to others. Unfortunately for the manager, the application of the Greatest Happiness Principle in this case was misguided. The true Greatest Happiness Principle informs the actions of Kevin Johnson more than any other actor in the case. 
Kevin Johnson took an approach that both maximized shareholder value by taking into account the reputation of the Starbucks Corporation and the brand image of the company. By immediately reacting with condemnation of the store manager, and by simultaneously setting in motion a series of actions that would promote more ethical behaviors in the organization, Johnson used utilitarian principles. Johnson used the greatest happiness principle based partly on the fact that the bystander customer’s video went viral. The quick and intense public outcry to the incident shows that the greatest number of people in this scenario certainly stand against the manager’s actions. Even on the most materialistic grounds, Johnson would recognize that the manager’s actions would be considered unethical or immoral based on rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism focuses on the ethical value of a rule or practice. In this case, calling the police on people who had not yet ordered their drinks was the rule that the manager and the police ascribed to, and which Johnson and the general public believed was wrong. The rule of kicking people out just because they had not yet ordered does not promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Act utilitarianism focuses less on the ethical rule or law and more on the act itself. In this case, the manager acted in a way that most certainly did not serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. 
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethicists focus on the importance of cultivating moral character: a virtuous agent. The actor and his or her motivations are more important than the act itself or the ends or consequences of that act. Virtue ethics is “centered on the moral agent,” or virtuous agent (Sampaio da Silva 1). Acting in the sake of virtue is the ultimate test for moral permissibility. One acts in order to become a more virtuous person. For example, a person knows that giving an anonymous donation to charity is a virtuous thing to do. The virtuous person does not just give to any charity, though; because unlike deontological ethics, virtue ethics has no absolute and immutable laws. The virtue ethicist recognizes the importance of situational variables. Virtues refer to moral character—the cultivation of moral character is what it important.
In the Starbucks case, virtue ethics is why Johnson decided to use the employee training, shutting down 8000 branches of Starbucks and sacrificing unkn own amounts of money in order to cultivate the type of virtuous moral character inside company culture. The Starbucks diversity training is supposed to impart the moral virtues of creating a welcoming, tolerant public space in which people are free to linger and relax while waiting for their friends or colleagues to arrive. The nonvirtuous (vicious) agent in this case is the store manager, who failed to express any type of moral virtue in the act of calling the police. Similarly, the police were nonvirtuous agents. Although Visconti also accuses Johnson of being a nonvirtuous agent who operates from within a framework of structural and institutionalized racism, the CEO of Starbucks in fact cultivated moral character and planned to make the company more virtuous through the training and presumed changes to company culture (1).
Conclusion
Deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics, and virtue ethics often converge, even though their methods of moral reasoning are strikingly different. In the Starbucks case, the manager did not act in accordance with the deontological Formula of the Universal Law. The manager also did not act in accordance with Rule Utilitarianism or Act Utilitarianism. In fact, the manager did not act with virtue either, making it quite clear why there was a public outcry and few who would be able to logically or reasonably defend the person’s actions. CEO Johnson did act in accordance with utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics principles in aiming to create more sensible and ethical company policies.