Is it empathy, or is it the realization that the decline could be worse if they develop a Nestle-style reputation and inspire boycotts or something? I won't rule out empathy, but it's not the first thing that jumps to mind for me.

I feel like you've gotta either be willing to give the benefit of the doubt or treat empathy as by definition inapplicable to corporations. It's always possible to come up with a story where companies doing nice things are secretly just maximizing profits.

They can also fail at maximizing profits with an idea that was indistinguishable from empathy.

Which therefore fits the term altruistic, whether they intended for this or not, as other businesses have not replicated what Starbucks is doing.

With all these possibilities, alongside a potentially contrived ideal of a founder to actually subsidize public bathrooms for all, doesn't that mean it is useless to debate and just accept the reality at face value of "they are providing a service and its nice"

How is everyone's Nestle boycott going btw? Our household has kept most nestle products out for the last several years, but its hard because they own so many brands that we just don't realize sometimes.

An example for background (incomplete list of stuff they do): https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-...

Who really cares if it was empathy or not?

I think the world would be a better place if we judged people based on action rather than intention. Intention is complex and hard to determine.

I'd like to consider them both. Zero tolerance in schools is shit because victims suddenly get treated the same, or worse, than their bully.

I remember Starbucks catching a lot of hell because on 2001-09-11 they made rescue workers pay for water a downtown NYC location.

Damned if they do...damned if they don't. Why don't you just appreciate the actions if you can't assume someone is acting in good faith ? Have you opened up your bathrooms for the homeless ?

Everyone here is talking like they don't remember the protest. The restroom policy change was in response to a protest alleging them of racism. The homeless had nothing to do with it.

From the linked study:

> In May 2018, in response to protests, Starbucks changed its policies nationwide to allow anybody to sit in their stores and use the bathroom without making a purchase.

From April 2018: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/17/603093380/protests-continue-a...

> Protests continued Monday at a Philadelphia Starbucks where two black men were arrested Saturday after an employee accused them of trespassing.

Not empathy, that's for sure - you can reasonably assume that a company as big as Starbucks looked at every possible scenario, made a risk/benefit assessment (across several areas including PR) before deciding on this policy.

I appreciate the cynicism, but I find it incompatible with more typical cynicism.

This could just as easily be a single executive implementing a comprehensive policy without justification based on a personal hunch.

it was grand standing trying to curry favor from the outrage brigades on twitter and other sites which have turned into nothing but means to intimidate and humiliate.

they were more than willing to put their own employees at risk and their customers to score political points while they can safely hide in their headquarters any never experience the issue first hand.

this is no different than government officials in city hall pontificating to the rest how the rest need to accept homeless and more all the while protected in buildings with metal detectors and guards and security patrols for most of the higher ups.

Or maybe they felt empathy for the homeless and determined there was actually little risk to their employees? What’s the simpler reason?

> What’s the simpler reason?

That they made a business decision. Corporations don't have empathy, and CEOs wouldn't be where they are if they did.

When you say empathy, what do you mean?

I'm not a native English speaker and I am confused when I see this word used in political conversation a lot in a way which is not clearly related to the dictionary definition.

The word is commonly misused. What they probably mean is sympathy, but that isn't really right either. The correct word would be compassion or altruism.

But /altruism/ is a word that sometimes sets people off.

Sympathy is when you feel the same as someone else is feeling. Empathy is when you only understand how someone else is feeling. Corporate Starbucks people would be empathic but not sympathetic - they have access to the bathrooms anyway.

GP meant the dictionary definition

>the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

It is often used as a synonym for “sympathy.”

I doubt it's a case of corporate empathy. about a year before the policy change, there was a viral story about how they kicked out two black men because they hadn't (yet) bought anything. the guys ended up getting arrested, and the whole thing was a PR disaster. it's hard not to see the bathroom policy as a direct (and calculated) response.

As other have pointed out, they probably didn't have a bunch of executives sit around in an empathy session. They made a cost benefit analysis that this was the best course of action given the current cultural/political climate.

Nothing to do with empathy.

What is Starbucks getting on the benefit side of the equation? Fewer visits, less money spent, and less time spent in locations.

People are assuming a cost/benefit analysis was made and the right profit-generation decision arrived on. I’m more inclined to believe they guessed and they guessed wrong - trying to calculate the relative cost of Twitter outrages is impossible and over the next few years they will correct the decision based on homeless deterrence strategies they develop in the meantime.

I think they traded a fixed reduction in sales for removing the possibility of a massive boycott / public image blowout. This is essentially an insurance policy.

PR has a positive as well as a negative value and the backlash from changing this would be negative PR and impact sales, if by carrying on they gain no value and more neutral PR.

Though it is bemusing as a PR example as it is a case of allowing people to Pee or else they will go aRggghh. Public Relations will never sound the same from now on.