EDIT: Okay corporations aren't people therefore cannot have empathy. Can we say "forced empathy?" There's probably a real word here. Either way Starbucks budged under some moral compass forced or otherwise.
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"
An example for background (incomplete list of stuff they do): https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-...
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.
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.
This could just as easily be a single executive implementing a comprehensive policy without justification based on a personal hunch.
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.
That they made a business decision. Corporations don't have empathy, and CEOs wouldn't be where they are if they did.
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 ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
But /altruism/ is a word that sometimes sets people off.
Nothing to do with empathy.
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.