For a company that is supposedly data driven like Amazon likes to tout, they have zero data that RTO would provide the benefits they claim[0]. They even admitted as much[1].
I wouldn't be shocked if one day some leaked memos or emails come to light that prove it was all about control and/or backdoor layoffs, despite their PR spin that it isn't (what competent company leader would openly admit this?)
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/over-500-amazon-...
[1]: https://fortune.com/2023/09/05/amazon-andy-jassy-return-to-o...
They'll have plenty of data to support the primary motivation: that enforcing arbitrary RTO policies will absolutely aid in generating staff turnover and voluntary attrition without having to payout severance costs. The policy gives them less direct control over who they lose, but I'm sure the data also points to any critical replacement employees being willing to work for less on average. That's the data they are looking at.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more straightforward than that. They've got some very expensive office space that's extremely under-utilised, and they're probably at risk of the rent getting raised on a lot of it unless they can increase footfall.
If you have way-underutilized office space that you can sell or not renew leases on, you can shed it like a former employer was doing when I left. Otherwise, there's basically no value in how many or few people are filling the space unless they're actually delivering some business value to the entity paying for the lease. (Unless, maybe, it relates to promises made to some local jurisdiction that gave you tax breaks.)
A lot might depend on how long a lease was signed, and what penalties there might be for breaking it.
Sure. Breaking leases have costs. But the cases I have some direct experience with are generally simply not renewing them.