Something I need to point out: the office is still cheaper to run when empty, even if the corporation pays the lease. And as far as I know, no company pays extra for working from home, in fact the opposite seems to be sometimes true. So I don't think your assessment holds.
I think the most important factor is... management. Managers just feel they lose the control. Maybe some are even afraid they will become irrelevant.
It's a sunk cost fallacy situation. They're already paying for it, so why not put it to use? The collaboration and innovation gains are worth the premium, and they need to stay competitive since $OTHER_COMPANY is going back to the office.
Otherwise, I am sure most people by and large would enjoy would enjoy not wasting their life transiting back and forth to work.
I personally find this true, but I think there are a lot of younger tech people that use the workplace to fill a social gap that is hard to fill otherwise. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence but my company sold quite a few properties-- their leases were either up and they didn't renew or they outright sold commercial properties they owned-- and our younger employees have openly expressed concern that we are full time wfh.
Is there something that reduces the cost if the building is fully occupied rather than mostly empty? If so, companies could remodel the buildings to have lower density, but more comfortable working spaces - turn all available spaces into small meeting room/working space.
In fact, it might be cheaper if your employees WFH rather than come to office since you can avoid paying for subsidized lunch, snacks, coffee etc. at office, power and cooling all of which I would think are substantial.
I think the divide between WFH and return to the office boils down to something surprisingly simple: how much longer does your current lease last and/or how much office property do you own.
Companies that are about to have a lease expire, or are growing at a rate that they would need to soon lease an even larger building are going to be surprisingly friendly to WFH.
Companies that have 5+ years on their current lease and aren't planning rapid growth, or companies that spend enormous capital building mega-offices that they likely can't recoup the losses from unless people keep working in offices are going to be very resistant to wide spread WFH.
The company I currently work for has an office, is not giving it up (so I assume long term lease) but has nearly doubled since the pandemic. They are very WFH friendly. Another company I know had a shorter lease, shrunk considerably and is now too small for there old office: also WFH friendly.
I know a few other companies that aren't growing or shrinking and either own or long term lease several large offices in expensive cities. All of them are pushing a return to office.
Any company that owns commercial real estate is going to be very aggressive about a return to work, not just for their employees, but for everyone.