Ethics of Kevin Johnson's response to the Starbucks restroom controversy

How Philosophy Influences Society:  Starbucks and the Restroom Controversy

Introduction

When two African-American men were arrested for loitering outside a Starbucks after being refused permission to use the restroom as they were not purchasing customers,  Starbucks’ CEO Kevin Johnson made the decision to open all Starbucks’ bathrooms to the public regardless of whether the person was a paying customer or not.  This was Starbucks’ attempt to address a problem directly.  This essay will examine the decision of Johnson as a deontologist, a virtue ethicist, and as a utilitarian and show what each would view as the right thing to do in this case.  

The Case

On April 12, 2018, two African-American men were waiting their friends without making any purchase at Starbucks in Philadelphia. The store manager asked them to leave, but they refused, explained that they were waiting for their partners. After that, the manager called police, and said the men refused to leave. Later on the police came in, and arrested them. CEO Kevin Johnson stated that the decision made by the manager was not representative of Starbucks’ Mission and Values.  One month later, Starbucks released a new Third Party Policy, which indicated that anyone could use Starbucks and its facilities without making a purchase.  The CEO was attempting to correct for racial bias by opening its bathrooms and facilities to all people so that such a mistake would not occur in the future (Conklin).  Was this the right thing to do on Johnson’s part?  What would a deontologist say?

The Deontological Perspective

Deontology puts forward the idea that people have a duty to act rightly.  What is right may depend at times on the situation, however.  The theory of moral relativity, for example, falls into the category of deontological ethics:  it presupposes that in some instance it is right to act a certain—for example, if one is trying to save another from being found by a killer, it may be moral to lie about his whereabouts (Sen).  Not all deontologists agree on that point, though, and Kant argued that lying is never right and that moral absolutism applies in such a case.  From perspective of the duty-based ethics philosophy the question depends on how one defines what is right (Karnik, Kanekar).

Ethics is a fundamental aspect of business, and one has to know what one’s duties are towards consumers.  For Starbucks, a company that has set itself apart from peers by being establishing a true third-party type of environment for people who want to come, hang out, use the Wi-Fi, wait for friends, or get away from the rat race and maybe enjoy a latte while doing so, differentiation is what matters (Trout, Rivkin).  What is right for Starbucks, therefore, might not be right for McDonald’s as they are two different companies with different clientele, different brands, different reputations, and different ideals and approaches to the community.  Starbucks is known as being a customer-friendly store—i.e., a person can come into a Starbucks without being questioned as to whether he is going to purchase something because he knows Starbucks is customer-friendly and offers free services as part of its approach to business.

When the two African-Americans were arrested for loitering, it appeared that this was in conflict with the business ideal and vision of the company and the manager made the wrong decision to call the police from a deontological point of view.  The decision appears to have been based on race, as the people were black and the manager feared violence as a result of implicit bias.  And, as the case of the Starbucks CEO shows, the real issue was an ethical one:  should managers call the police over a situation where the customer is simply attempting to use the facilities in a manner consistent with the reputation of the company?  The CEO showed that the manager was in the wrong and clarified policy to the extent that all of the public was free to use Starbucks’ facilities in the future.  From the deontological perspective, this was the right thing to do because Starbucks had already made it part of its vision and mission to the community to open its doors to all people whether they were having a small cup of coffee or just needing a place to relax for a while.  Starbucks was about providing an environment—not just java.  It was about culture, and it professed from the beginning that what set itself apart from other companies was that it was committed to bringing a new culture to the restaurant industry.  In other words, it had a duty to differentiate itself from other companies by being inclusive and open.  Thus, a deontologist would say that Starbucks made the right decision with regard to instituting its new policy.

The Utilitarian Perspective

The utilitarian philosophy is based on the idea of J.S. Mill that the greatest good should always be pursued by society.  In other words, what benefits the most people or is identified as the common good is what the most moral course of action will be.   From an ethical standpoint, the utilitarian would say that a system of ethics should be determined by examining what will have the greatest benefit for society and then developing a policy based on this awareness of what will be good for the whole of society.

Mill’s philosophy has sometimes been called a philosophy of pragmatism or practicality, because it focuses mainly on what would be most practical—i.e., what would work best for people or for all stakeholders.  This approach to the case of the Starbucks issue would show that the most practical approach is to have a uniform policy that applies to all people.  To show prejudice to any one group would be to sow division and discord, to make people feel uncomfortable and unwanted.  It would harm the coffee house’s reputation and cause bitterness among some customers.

On the other hand, the utilitarian could argue that by changing the policy to explicitly allow anyone to come in and use the restrooms could be problematic for business and for employees not to mention other consumers.  For instance, Conklin noted that one issue in some urban areas would be homeless people squatting in Starbucks facilities and doing drugs in the bathrooms.  They might leave heroin needles which could cause problems for workers and customers.  Conklin indicated that by having an open-door policy, Starbucks would be inviting abuses of its good will towards the public by people who were just looking for a place to engage in harmful activity.

Thus, the utilitarian would have more to think about before making a decision on what to do in this case.  Calling the police on the black men would almost certainly be frowned upon by the utilitarian as nothing good could come of this other than bad press for the company.  So that would be considered a mistake.  However, creating a new and explicit policy about public use of facilities could also be viewed as a mistake.  In most cases, the most practical and utilitarian course of action will be right down the middle, and in this case two extremes appear to be evident:  the extreme of calling the police on the one side, and the extreme of explicitly announcing an open-door policy to the public on the other side.

On the other hand, the utilitarian could argue that it is in the best interest of the most people for Starbucks to provide an explicit policy on the use of its facilities as this would make it clear once and for all who had access to them and who did not.  By providing a more explicit policy in this regard the company could affirm its mission and values to the public.  Thus, it is important for a utilitarian to determine what the good is and how it would impact the most people.  In this sense, the utilitarian could say that the CEO made the right decision regardless of possible negative outcomes because overall the clear open-doors policy would promote the brand’s values and make people feel welcome in the Starbucks, which is in keeping with the company’s reputation.

Conclusion

When it comes to applying ethics and philosophy to business practices, there is no one right way to look at a situation.  That is why it is important to consider multiple perspectives and to ensure that more than one ethical system is applied to a case.  In the case of the Starbucks manager who called the police on two black men after refusing them permission to use their facilities, this was an obvious breach of morality no matter what system of ethics was applied, whether deontological, virtue or utilitarian.  With the CEO creating a new policy to make up for the mistake, the deontologist and the virtue ethicist would agree that this was the moral thing to do.  There may be some disagreement among utilitarians, however, depending on what they viewed as the greater good in this situation—the safety of workers and consumers, or promotion of the value of inclusivity.

Works Cited

Conklin, A.  “Why the new Starbucks bathroom policy is a steaming cup of fail.”  

DailyCaller, 2018.  http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/15/starbucks-bathroom-policy-fail/

Holmes, A.  Ethics:  Approaching moral decisions.  Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press.

Karnik, S., & Kanekar, A. “Ethical issues surrounding end-of-life care: a 

narrative review.” In Healthcare, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2016), p. 24. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

Sen, A. “Evaluator relativity and consequential evaluation.” Philosophy & Public 

Affairs, (1983), 113-132.

Trout, J. & Rivkin, S.  “Differentiate or die.”  In The marketing Gurus (ed. Murray).  NY:  Penguin, 2006.