Starbucks Philadelphia Incident: Ethics in Leadership
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of the 2018 Starbucks Philadelphia incident, in which a store manager called police on two Black men waiting for a colleague. Using three major ethical frameworks, the paper evaluates the actions of the store manager, the responding police officers, and CEO Kevin Johnson. It argues that Johnson's swift condemnation of the manager, public apology, and decision to close approximately 8,000 stores for diversity training can be analyzed through deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics lenses simultaneously. Rather than treating these frameworks as incompatible, the paper demonstrates how all three converge to illuminate the ethical failures of the store manager and the ethically defensible leadership response of the CEO.
- Introduction: Thesis: three ethics frameworks explain Johnson's response
- Facts of the Case: Viral arrest, firing, apology, and store closures
- Deontological Ethics: Categorical imperative and universal moral law applied
- Utilitarianism: Greatest Happiness Principle guides Johnson's actions
- Virtue Ethics: Moral character cultivation through diversity training
- Conclusion: All three frameworks condemn manager, support Johnson
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies three distinct ethical frameworks to a single, well-known real-world case, making abstract philosophical concepts concrete and accessible.
- It acknowledges complexity and tension—for instance, raising the possibility that Johnson used the store manager as a "scapegoat"—rather than presenting a one-sided moral verdict.
- The conclusion ties all three frameworks together coherently, showing how they converge despite their methodological differences, which demonstrates genuine synthesis rather than simple description.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: taking established philosophical frameworks (Kantian deontology, utilitarian consequentialism, and virtue ethics) and systematically applying each to the same factual scenario. By dedicating a section to each framework and returning to the same cast of actors (manager, police, CEO), the paper creates a clear comparative structure that allows readers to see how different moral lenses produce different—yet ultimately convergent—judgments.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that previews all three frameworks and states the thesis. It then presents the facts of the case neutrally before devoting one section each to deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Each analytical section defines the framework, identifies its key concepts (categorical imperative, Greatest Happiness Principle, virtuous agent), and applies them to specific actors in the incident. A brief conclusion synthesizes the three analyses and reaffirms the central argument.
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 a colleague 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 had called the police, 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 had also traditionally utilized a virtue ethics approach in its company culture, particularly with regard to allowing managers a great deal of discretion over decisions related to customer relations (Tangdall 1). While it may seem that 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 analyzes the actions of both the former store manager and CEO Kevin Johnson to reveal the many ethical facets of 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 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 to other people.
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 8,000 Starbucks stores to provide diversity training for managers and employees (Visconti 1). Johnson's reaction to the event can be framed from deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics perspectives.
Deontological Ethics
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 as a general 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 laws failing to reflect universal ethics can be seen in American history with legally enforced racial segregation. Therefore, ethical principles precede the evolution of formal ethical codes. The categorical imperative as the Formula of the Universal motivates individuals to take action in alignment with universal ethical laws.
The absence of a formal ethical code does not imply the absence of a universal formula. In the Starbucks case, the store manager 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 an ethical principle. In the Starbucks case, the police officers were enforcing laws that ostensibly protect the general public from minor misdemeanors such as 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 posed a danger to the public, their actions would not have been justifiable because of the way they dehumanized the two men, using them as a mere means to an end—an exhibition of power and privilege. The concept of mere means refers to using people solely as instruments for one's own purposes. It should be noted, however, that Johnson may also have used the manager as a mere means—a scapegoat to divert attention from a corporate culture that had yet to fully 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. This concept also ties into the notion of moral motivation: being intrinsically motivated to act morally is the epitome of end-in-itself behavior. The categorical imperative refers to the absolute rightness or wrongness of an act—an act can be inherently good or bad, regardless of the actor's motivation. In this case, the manager's motivation is meaningless in light of the moral wrongness of an act of discrimination that publicly humiliated two persons and also potentially harmed the entire Starbucks Corporation.
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 store 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 widespread public outcry and why few observers could logically or reasonably defend his actions. CEO Johnson, by contrast, did act in accordance with utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics principles in aiming to create more sensible and ethical company policies.
Works Cited
Gourguechon, Prudy. "The Psychology of Apology." Forbes, 6 May 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2018/05/06/the-psychology-of-apology-how-did-starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-do/#6487c2c4ac8d.
Sampaio da Silva, R. "Moral Motivation and Judgment in Virtue Ethics." Philonsorbonne, https://journals.openedition.org/philonsorbonne/993.
Tangdall, Sara. "The CEO of Starbucks and the Practice of Ethical Leadership." Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/leadership-ethics/resources/the-ceo-of-starbucks-and-the-practice-of-ethical-leadership/.
Visconti, Luke. "Starbucks: Don't Close the Stores, Close Corporate Headquarters." DiversityInc, 2018,
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.