Ethics and the Starbucks Restroom Controversy Explained

Introduction

When two African-American men were arrested for loitering at a Starbucks after being refused permission to use the restroom because they were not paying customers, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson made the decision to open all Starbucks bathrooms to the public regardless of whether a person had made a purchase. This was Starbucks' attempt to address a serious problem directly. This essay examines Johnson's decision through three major ethical frameworks — deontology, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism — and considers what each perspective would identify as the right course of action in this case.

The Case

On April 12, 2018, two African-American men were waiting for friends at a Starbucks in Philadelphia without making any purchase. The store manager asked them to leave, but they refused, explaining that they were waiting for their partners. The manager then called the police, stating that the men had refused to leave. Police arrived and arrested them. CEO Kevin Johnson stated that the manager's decision was not representative of Starbucks' mission and values. One month later, Starbucks released a new Third Party Policy indicating that anyone could use Starbucks and its facilities without making a purchase. The CEO was attempting to correct for racial bias by opening Starbucks' bathrooms and facilities to all people so that such an incident 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 holds 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 within the category of deontological ethics: it presupposes that in some instances it is right to act in a certain way — for example, if one is trying to protect another from a killer, it may be moral to lie about that person's whereabouts (Sen). Not all deontologists agree on this point. Kant argued that lying is never right and that moral absolutism applies in all cases. From the perspective of duty-based ethics, the question ultimately depends on how one defines what is right (Karnik & Kanekar).

Ethics is a fundamental aspect of business, and one must understand one's duties toward consumers. For Starbucks — a company that has set itself apart from competitors by cultivating a genuine third-party environment for people who want to come in, hang out, use the Wi-Fi, wait for friends, or simply enjoy a latte — differentiation is what matters (Trout & Rivkin). What is right for Starbucks, therefore, might not be right for McDonald's, as these are two different companies with different clientele, different brands, different reputations, and different ideals and approaches to community. Starbucks has built its reputation as a customer-friendly store — a place where a person can enter without being questioned about whether they intend to make a purchase, because the company has positioned itself as open and welcoming as part of its core business approach.

When the two African-American men were arrested for loitering, it appeared that this outcome was in direct conflict with the company's business ideal and vision, meaning the manager made the wrong decision from a deontological point of view. The decision appears to have been influenced by race, as the men were Black and the manager may have reacted out of implicit bias. As the CEO's response made clear, the real issue was ethical: should managers call the police when a customer is simply attempting to use the facilities in a manner consistent with the company's own reputation? The CEO demonstrated that the manager was in the wrong and clarified policy so that all members of the public would be free to use Starbucks' facilities going forward. From the deontological perspective, this was the right thing to do. Starbucks had already made it part of its mission and vision to open its doors to all people, whether they were purchasing a coffee or simply needed a place to relax. Starbucks was about providing an environment — not just java. It was about culture, and the company had professed from the beginning that what set it apart from others was a commitment 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. A deontologist would therefore say that Starbucks made the right decision in instituting its new policy.

The Virtue Ethicist Perspective

Virtue ethics stems from the classical philosophical tradition, in which the path to a moral life runs through virtue — that is, through good habits. Good habits are defined as those which lead a person toward happiness and are generally related to ideals such as truth, goodness, and unity. When one lives according to a commitment to these ideals, one is considered both happiest and most moral. This was Aristotle's point of view.

From the standpoint of virtue ethics, the primary factor in determining whether an action is moral is whether it does good to others (Holmes). In the case of the manager who called the police on the two African-American men after refusing them access to the facilities, the right thing to do from a virtue ethics perspective would have been to allow the men to use the facilities and wait for their friend without interference. Many customers go to Starbucks to wait for friends or to study without fear of being hassled, precisely because the coffee house has a reputation for openness. However, when Black people arrived at this establishment, they were treated differently — a disparity consistent with implicit racial bias.

Showing disfavor toward African Americans while showing favor to white customers is a form of racism, and calling the police on Black individuals who are simply waiting outside the store after being denied access to the facilities is clearly not an act aimed at doing good to others. From a virtue ethics perspective, therefore, the manager acted wrongly in calling the police, and the CEO acted rightly in affirming a clear new policy that removed any ambiguity about the coffee house's commitment to keeping its facilities open to all people, regardless of race, creed, or gender.

Conclusion

When it comes to applying ethics and philosophy to business practices, there is no single correct way to evaluate a situation. That is precisely why it is important to consider multiple perspectives and to apply more than one ethical system to any given case. In the Starbucks incident — in which a manager called the police on two Black men after refusing them permission to use the store's facilities — the action represented an obvious breach of morality under every ethical framework examined, whether deontological, virtue-based, or utilitarian. With the CEO creating a new policy to address the mistake, both 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 identified as the greater good in this situation — the safety and comfort of workers and other consumers, or the promotion of inclusivity as a core company value.

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." Healthcare, vol. 4, no. 2, 2016, p. 24. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

Sen, A. "Evaluator relativity and consequential evaluation." Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1983, pp. 113–132.

Trout, J., & Rivkin, S. "Differentiate or die." The Marketing Gurus, edited by Murray, Penguin, 2006.