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...
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. https://www.diversityinc.com/Ask-the-CEO/starbucks-racism
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now